Oral
Answers to
Questions

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport was asked—

Leaving the EU: Creative Industries

Nick Smith: What assessment she has made of the potential effect of the UK leaving the EU on funding for the creative industries.

Karen Bradley: Before I start, I remind the House that, as per today’s Order Paper, I plan to make a statement on the proposed merger of 21st Century Fox and Sky after business questions, so I will not answer any questions on the subject during oral questions this morning, but I will of course be happy to do so at the Dispatch Box later.
We have been engaging with representatives from across the creative industries to understand the potential impact and opportunities of the UK’s decision to leave the EU, including on funding. The Treasury has announced that it will guarantee funding for structural and investment fund projects between the time we leave the EU and 2020.

Nick Smith: Blaenau Gwent has been the filming location for everything from “Wrath of the Titans” and “Doctor Who” to “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”. I am keen for the British film industry to thrive after Brexit, so will the Government negotiate for the UK to stay in Creative Europe, the vital film funding programme which our brilliant British Film Institute helps hold together?

Karen Bradley: I join the hon. Gentleman in praising Blaenau Gwent. I also praise not only all the parts of Wales that are used as filming locations for some fantastic films and television programmes, but the studios in Cardiff where many great programmes, including “Doctor Who”, are filmed. I am aware of the views about Creative Europe, and we are looking at all the European funds and making decisions about the appropriate response from the United Kingdom to those funds after we leave the European Union.

John Whittingdale: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s recognition of the importance to the creative industries of their ability to license on an  exclusively territorial basis. Will she ensure that that message gets across to the UK permanent representation in Brussels so that it argues that case as strongly as possible while we remain in the EU?

Karen Bradley: I can say categorically yes. My right hon. Friend’s point is one reason why people were concerned about our membership of the EU and one of the things that led to the vote on 23 June last year.

Sharon Hodgson: Leaving the EU could affect not only funding, but the growth of the creative industries, which contribute £87.1 billion a year—£160,000 a minute—to the UK’s economy. What safeguards is the Secretary of State putting in place to protect this currently thriving sector of UK plc?
I also want to take this opportunity to put on the record my enormous thanks to the Secretary of State and her team for bringing forward “ban the bots” legislation and taking on board all the recommendations of the Waterson report.

Karen Bradley: I thank the hon. Lady for that comment. The two of us first met to discuss the matter probably about three years ago when I was a Home Office Minister and had responsibility for it through the organised crime portfolio. She has campaigned long and hard to achieve this result. She and my hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams) deserve great credit for the fact that we have reached this point.
The hon. Lady rightly says that the creative industries are a great British success story, which is one reason why they are mentioned explicitly in our industrial strategy Green Paper. It is worth saying that the creative industries are a success because they are truly global. The European Union is not the only market that they look at; they look across the whole world, and I want to ensure that they continue to be a success.

John Bercow: We are very grateful.

Philip Hollobone: Does the Secretary of State agree that there has been cross-fertilisation of creative and artistic talent among all the peoples of Europe for at least several millennia, and that there is no reason to suppose that that will stop once we leave the European Union?

Karen Bradley: I will take your hint about brevity, Mr Speaker, and say yes.

John Nicolson: All across Europe, our competitors in the creative industries are ready to pounce, believing that Brexit uncertainty is their opportunity. By refusing to guarantee the residency rights of EU nationals this week, does the Secretary of State realise that the Government have once again shown themselves to be a poor champion for those in this and so many other sectors in the UK?

Karen Bradley: We have had debates about EU nationals at length in this House and in the other place. We have been clear that we want early certainty not only for EU nationals here in the UK, but for UK nationals in  Europe. It is incredibly important that we get that reciprocal arrangement as soon as possible so that we can give that certainty.

Nigel Huddleston: The Secretary of State will be aware that the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport recently visited Belfast, where we were able to visit the “Game of Thrones” set. We asked about the EU contribution to the Northern Ireland creative industries and, to my surprise, EU funding as such did not come up but access to a UK talent pool did. Does she therefore believe that Government investment should be focused on building that talent pool?

Karen Bradley: My hon. Friend is exactly right. We need to make sure that we have the skills and talent here in the UK and that we attract the brightest and best from around the world. I look forward to visiting Northern Ireland. A few political issues are stopping me doing so at the moment, but as soon as they are resolved I will make that visit.

Leaving the EU: Charities and Voluntary Sector

Susan Elan Jones: What assessment she has made of the potential effect of the UK leaving the EU on charities and voluntary organisations.

Rob Wilson: The Government are assessing the impact of leaving the EU on the voluntary and community sector. We are in ongoing discussions about the challenges and opportunities that leaving the EU presents, and I encourage charities to raise specific concerns with relevant lead Departments. We will continue to work with the sector and with devolved Administrations, including the Welsh Assembly, as we plan our exit from the EU.

Susan Elan Jones: I thank the Minister for his response and I place on record that I co-chair the all-party parliamentary group on charities and volunteering. He will be aware that this is a serious situation, with somewhere between £350 million and £450 million being seen as the Brexit shortfall, and that does not include match funding. Can we have some assurances that there will be a long-term strategy, and not just in terms of current funding?

Rob Wilson: I thank the hon. Lady for her work on the all-party group, which obviously has support both inside and outside this House and is of great benefit to the sector. On working with the sector on funding, leaving the EU means that we will want to make our own decisions on how we deliver the policy objectives previously targeted by EU funding. For projects signed after the 2016 autumn statement, funding will be honoured by the Treasury after we leave the EU if it provides strong value for money and is in line with domestic priorities.

David Nuttall: According to the Directory of Social Change, the money that charities get from the EU amounts to some 0.5% of the sector’s income. Does my hon. Friend agree that the opportunities afforded by the Government’s proposals to access dormant funds will go a long way towards covering any shortfall in funding from the EU, and might exceed it?

Rob Wilson: Indeed, I do. Last year, according to the Charity Commission, the sector received about £73 billion in income. The Government have a number of funding mechanisms that are aiding the sector now, and £5 billion of tax reliefs and other support is in place to make sure that the charity sector can go from strength to strength.

Ian Murray: The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations conducted a survey last month on the impact of Brexit on the charity and voluntary sector in Scotland. Some 40% of charities are concerned about their networks and collaborations with other EU charities. What will the Minister do to reassure Scottish charities, and indeed charities across the United Kingdom, that those networks and collaborations will be protected post-Brexit?

Rob Wilson: Charity legislation is devolved from the EU, so it is a UK responsibility, and within the UK responsibility for charity legislation is devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Government are listening very closely to all parts of civil society across the UK, and we will be working closely with them to make sure that we have a long-term plan and a long-term strategy.

Steve Reed: The Brexit Secretary tells us that he has done no work to understand the implications for the country of a no-deal Brexit. What work has the Minister done to understand the implications of a no-deal Brexit for charities, not just in terms of funding but in terms of the sector’s extremely diverse workforce?

Rob Wilson: There is an enormous amount of ongoing work, and we recognise that civil society organisations have a wide range of important views on Brexit. We have chaired a number of roundtables with representatives from the sector, and we are working very closely with the sector. As I said in a previous answer, we have a long-term plan and strategy to make sure that the sector is supported.

Superfast Broadband

Tom Pursglove: What support her Department is giving local authorities to achieve superfast broadband coverage targets.

Matthew Hancock: I can tell the House that independent figures show that superfast broadband is now available to 92.5% of UK premises; we are on track to meet our manifesto commitment of 95% by the end of the year.

Tom Pursglove: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. The superfast roll-out in Northamptonshire is ahead of schedule, but what reassurance can he give  to my constituents in the most difficult-to-reach areas, particularly those who find themselves on county boundaries, that they will soon benefit from this  roll-out, too?

Matthew Hancock: My hon. Friend’s support for the Digital Economy Bill means that the universal service obligation to bring high-speed broadband to every premises in the UK is getting closer to reality. Not only that, but because of the take-up of superfast broadband, every  person in Northamptonshire who takes it up also helps to get the roll-out to go further, because more money goes back into the system to provide more connection.

Liz Saville-Roberts: It is shameful that seven out of the 10 UK communities with the slowest broadband download speeds are in Wales. Abererch in Dwyfor is bottom of that league, with a speed of 2.7 megabits per second. Llanymawddwy in Meirionnydd was promised broadband by this spring, but BT backed out last month. Will the Minister join me in asking when the Labour Welsh Government will speed up their act on broadband?

Matthew Hancock: Of course the delivery of the broadband contract in Wales is a matter for the Welsh Government, but they have made some progress on this recently and we have been working together. The geography of Wales means that the roll-out there is harder, but that does not mean we should not get to everybody with high-speed broadband by the end of the decade. I hope that the hon. Lady’s support for the Digital Economy Bill will help to make that happen.

Kevin Hollinrake: In my village of Tholthorpe, 12 of 100 houses have not been enabled for superfast broadband, although the rest have. Openreach could solve this problem by the simple deployment of a wireless connection, but it refused to do so. The Minister met me to discuss this, so does he agree that contractors taking public money should use all means at their disposal to solve these problems?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, I do.

Chris Bryant: Dopes the Minister accept that often, even though the Government may say they have met their targets and the broadband providers will say that they have got fantastic speeds, people in their house or in their business will experience speeds that are much, much slower and nowhere near what the Government are promising? I am not attacking the Government in saying this; I am simply trying to get reality into the equation, so that people in their homes and in their businesses can get proper superfast broadband.

Matthew Hancock: Working with the hon. Gentleman on this subject has been unusually enjoyable, because he is not making party political points on this one; he has been working hard for his constituents and we have been engaged in serious correspondence. The truth is that we use independent figures on the roll-out, but a lot of people do not take up the broadband that is available to them.

John Bercow: We are immensely grateful to the Minister. I would call the hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) on this question if he were standing, but if he does not stand, I will not do so.

David Rutley: rose—

John Bercow: I am glad to say that he is standing, so I call Mr David Rutley.

David Rutley: It is good to be able to ask this question, so thank you for the  opportunity, Mr Speaker. I welcome the steps the Secretary of State is taking to improve broadband services across the country and in communities across our borders—I am very grateful for that work. Will the Minister tell the House more about the full-fibre connection vouchers that were detailed in the Budget Red Book? How will they assist businesses in our rural communities?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, I can. In the Budget we announced that we are going to have a full-fibre business voucher. This means that businesses will be able to access a voucher to help provide a full-fibre connection, giving gigabit speeds. The first wave of projects will be towards the end of this year or the start of next year, and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend on implementing that deal.

Dennis Skinner: Does the Minister think that this super-duper broadband, which is relatively new to me, will be able to expose, even more so, the Tory election fraud covering 20 seats? What a wonderful idea!

Matthew Hancock: I thought that even the hon. Gentleman was going to join in this non-partisan celebration of connectivity, but unfortunately he could not resist.

Andrew Stephenson: Data from the House of Commons Library show that the rural Higham and Pendleside ward in my constituency suffers some of the worst levels of broadband, with a quarter of residents experiencing absolutely pathetic download speeds. Will my right hon. Friend get his Department to sit down with Superfast Lancashire and Openreach to find a way forward for that ward?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, we are making some progress in Lancashire, but there is much more to do. I hope that my hon. Friend’s support for the Digital Economy Bill and the universal service obligation will help to make sure that we can connect everybody in Lancashire with a decent speed over the next couple of years.

Broadcasting: Diversity

Kate Green: What steps her Department is taking to encourage diversity in broadcasting.

Matthew Hancock: We are firmly committed to improving diversity and social mobility in broadcasting, as we are in all other areas of the creative industries. Next week, we will host the first ever formal diversity forum at the Abbey Road Studios, bringing together people from music, film, theatre, broadcasting and sport to build a country that works for everyone.

Kate Green: Will the Minister update the House on the discussions he is having and the progress that is being made on securing minimum levels of access—subtitling, signing and audio description—in on-demand services?

Matthew Hancock: We have made some progress with on-demand services, and the broadcasters do a very good job of making sure that subtitling is available.   Technology has obviously changed the way people consume video, and a lot more of it is on-demand, so we are going to introduce rules to ensure that on-demand gets the same sort of subtitling.

Julian Knight: In October last year, the BBC “Look North” reporter Danny Carpenter was suspended for making vile comments about the Government, relating them to a Nazi regime. I have written several letters to the BBC to find out how its investigations are coming along, but it has not given me an answer. Does the Minister agree that although we agree with diversity of opinion and views in broadcasting, the BBC should take action regarding Mr Carpenter to prevent the recurrence of such ridiculous bias?

Matthew Hancock: We rightly do not have direct Government regulation of the BBC regarding such matters, and I think that is appropriate. Nevertheless, through the new charter we are introducing Ofcom as the regulator. That will be the case once the Digital Economy Bill becomes law, after which it will be for Ofcom to regulate the BBC, and the BBC’s board will ultimately be responsible for making sure it gets these judgments right.

Rosena Allin-Khan: In a previous DCMS questions, the Minister of State told the House that he had chosen four white males for the Channel 4 board and rejected a well-qualified BAME woman because he rejected tokenism. However, this week the Secretary of State failed to appoint a BBC governor to represent Wales because she could not get her way and appoint a women who was not assessed as the best candidate. Is not the only diversity here that between the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, who thinks he should be the Secretary of State?

Matthew Hancock: No. On the Welsh appointment to Wales, it is a great pity that although the Welsh Government had a representative on the panel who signed off the appointability of the candidate, the Welsh Minister then decided not to appoint. Given that the Welsh Government agreed that the candidate in question was appointable, it would be far better for the appointment to be made.

Creative Industries: Skills

Joan Ryan: What discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on skills shortages in the creative industries.

Karen Bradley: I have regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues about the UK’s creative industries, and I am pleased that the creative industries are at the heart of the Government’s work on building our industrial strategy. The Green Paper includes an early sector review of the creative industries, which will be led by Sir Peter Bazalgette. It is critical that our world-leading creative industries have access to the skills they need, and that is one of the three themes of Sir Peter’s review.

Joan Ryan: I do not know whether the Secretary of State is aware, but there is an acute skills shortage in the creative industries. The simplest way to change that is through apprenticeships. However, there are insufficient  training establishments and not enough support for relevant small and medium-sized enterprises compared with, say, construction or engineering, and there is absolutely no history of training apprenticeships in the industry. Is the Secretary of State aware of those problems? What is she doing about them?

Karen Bradley: I am very aware of those problems. Structural issues with the creative industries have prevented apprenticeships from being included in the past. As part of the work of the Creative Industries Council, we have a specific workstream on skills, and I am in discussions with the Department for Education about how we get those apprenticeship opportunities.

Charities and Voluntary Sector: Funding

Peter Aldous: What steps her Department is taking to increase the number of funding sources available for charities and voluntary organisations.

Rob Wilson: I have been reforming the charities sector and widening its strength and depth as part of a long-term plan. There are a number of sources of finance. Most recently, the Dormant Assets Commission has reported that there might be up to £2 billion of additional dormant assets, which could be transformational for the sector.

Peter Aldous: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. In Suffolk, the Community First Endowment Match Challenge was extremely successful in leveraging local donations for grassroots causes, with private giving matched to almost three times the initial donation. Will the Minister meet me and the Suffolk Community Foundation to discuss how such an endowment challenge might be reintroduced?

Rob Wilson: I am very pleased to hear about the Suffolk foundation’s success. The Community First Endowment Match Challenge raised a permanent endowment of £130 million, which has provided £5.8 million in grants to local groups up to the end of 2015. It will continue to support local community groups and projects across England in the future. There are no plans to expand this programme in the current Parliament, but I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this further and, in due course, to see whether we can consider how dormant assets are spent.

John Bercow: I call Stewart Malcolm McDonald. Not here. Oh dear, where is the feller?

Access to the Arts

Justin Madders: What assessment she has made of the access working-class people have to the arts.

Karen Bradley: We seem to have moved on very quickly, Mr Speaker.
The Government are committed to ensuring that  the arts are accessible to everyone, regardless of their background, and not just to the privileged few. That is  why the Government’s culture White Paper, which was published a year ago this month, sets out a range of commitments to increase access and participation, including a new cultural citizens programme for young people.

Justin Madders: Will the Secretary of State read the report on access to the professions by the all-party group on social mobility, which I chair? During our evidence sessions, we heard a great deal about how many young people are completely denied access to the arts and media because they are not prepared, or cannot afford, to take a series of unpaid work placements. That is really limiting access, so will the Secretary of State seriously consider the report’s recommendation of banning unpaid internships lasting more than one month?

Karen Bradley: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his work on the all-party group; I will look carefully at the points that he has made. This Government have done much to change the culture of unpaid internships. I for one have never taken on an unpaid intern; I have always made sure that there is fair recompense for people who make a valuable contribution to my office.

Pauline Latham: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Royal Opera House regularly screens performances right around the country—I am particularly familiar with the ballet—which means that anyone can see them locally, without having to come to London.

Karen Bradley: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. The screening of the Royal Opera House’s productions across the country has widened access. I feel very strongly that we should have fantastic regional arts. Last Friday, I saw some fantastic arts in Hull, the city of culture. That amazing work was about ensuring that the arts were getting to everybody.

Barry Sheerman: Will the Secretary of State look at some of the work that we did when I chaired the Education Committee on young people’s access to the arts, including access to museums? What we found was that if a child from a more deprived background did not go on a school visit, they did not go at all, whereas middle-class children went with their parents. It is vital that we encourage schools to take kids to the arts and to museums.

Karen Bradley: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. This Government made a manifesto commitment to keep free access to museums to ensure that access is available to young people, whatever their background.

Arts and Culture: Local Authority Funding

Paul Blomfield: What steps she is taking to mitigate the effect on the provision of arts and culture of future changes in local authority budgets.

Matthew Hancock: Local authorities should recognise the huge benefits that investing in arts and culture can bring. Many already do, and are building successful partnerships to deliver arts and culture, and to develop new models of working together.

Paul Blomfield: The Government really ought to recognise the importance of investing in local authorities to deliver these services but, given the crisis in their funding, philanthropic giving is playing an increasingly important role. The Minister will be aware, I think, of the success of “Going Public”, which is a Museums Sheffield initiative on private giving. Will he agree to meet me and Museums Sheffield to discuss what more can be done on that front?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, I would be delighted to, not least because the best local authorities are increasing their investment in arts and culture, as they see its value in strengthening the sense of place and ensuring that arts are available to all. There is no excuse for not doing so.

Rebecca Pow: An innovative new organisation called Arts Taunton has just been established in my constituency to infiltrate art and culture into every aspect of our lives, including the new garden town. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this sector should have an equal weighting with other sectors and, indeed, that it can not only raise spirits, but benefit the economy?

Matthew Hancock: My hon. Friend is exactly right. I commend initiatives such as Arts Taunton for embedding arts, culture and creativity in all aspects of life. It is incredibly important that people of all ages have the opportunity to participate and are encouraged to do so.

Youth Football Contracts

Alan Brown: What discussions she has had with football associations on the status of youth football contracts.

Tracey Crouch: I am aware of concerns relating to youth football contracts in Scotland and have followed up the matter with the English football authorities in the light of this question. In relation to youth football in Scotland, I understand that the Scottish Government are discussing these matters with a range of stakeholders, including the football authorities, clubs, the Professional Footballers Association Scotland, and the Children’s Commissioner for Scotland.

Alan Brown: I thank the Minister for that answer. I presume that she is aware that the Realgrassroots campaign group has highlighted that some football clubs pay as little as £1 a week for youth football players who do 30 hours’ work. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has named and shamed those clubs, but will the Minister confirm what she will do to end this exploitation?

Tracey Crouch: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that this is a devolved issue, but I understand that the Scottish Government have emphasised strongly to the Scottish Football Association and the Scottish Professional Football League that concerns must be taken seriously. We obviously take the duty of care to youngsters incredibly seriously and continue to look at this.

Broadband: Rural Communities

Alistair Carmichael: What steps she is taking to improve broadband speeds in rural areas.

Matthew Hancock: We are on track, as we mentioned, to deliver 95% access to superfast broadband for UK homes and businesses. By 2020, we will introduce a universal service obligation to bring high-speed broadband to all parts of our country, including the most far-flung.

Alistair Carmichael: Far-flung places such as London, if you start your journey in Orkney, Mr Speaker.
Faroese Telecom has a bold and exciting proposal to improve connectivity in Scotland’s islands communities, but it is in fact thwarted at every turn by Ofcom regulation. Will the Minister agree to meet me and a delegation from the islands and Faroese Telecom to discuss how we could use Ofcom as an enabler rather than an obstructer?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, I would be delighted to. I am more familiar than I would ever have expected to be with Faroese Telecom’s policy because of how it has managed to roll out connectivity to the whole of those islands, and we should see whether we can do that for some of the islands in Scotland. Of course, the roll-out of superfast broadband in Scotland is done through the Scottish Government. They have been much, much slower than almost every other part of the UK—much slower than the Labour Welsh Government—but I am sure that, together, we can ensure that we bring the country together by delivering good connectivity.

Channel 4

Graham Jones: When she plans to make an announcement on the future status of Channel 4.

Karen Bradley: In due course.

Graham Jones: Brevity.
The question about privatisation is this: ITV’s profits are 26% of turnover, and Channel 4 has a £1 billion turnover. Are the Government seriously considering privatising Channel 4 and taking a quarter of its income for programming away?

Karen Bradley: The hon. Gentleman knows that in a fast-changing and challenging broadcasting environment, the Government want to ensure that Channel 4 has a strong and secure future, and that it can provide for audiences and support creative industries around the UK. I am looking at a broad range of options and, as I have said, I will report in due course.

Review of Stakes and Prizes

Patricia Gibson: When she plans to publish the review of stakes and prizes.

Tracey Crouch: The Government announced a review of gaming machines and social responsibility measures, which will cover fixed odds betting terminals, on 24 October, and we expect to publish our findings in the spring.

Patricia Gibson: Will the Minister reassure the House that firm action will be taken against fixed odds betting terminals—the so-called crack cocaine of gambling? In my constituency of North Ayrshire and Arran and the neighbouring one, there are 135 of these machines, on which a vulnerable player can lose £100 in a mere 20 seconds. Will the Government protect the vulnerable by capping the machines’ maximum gambling stake at £2?

Tracey Crouch: This is all part of the review. The hon. Lady does not have long to wait to find out what we will recommend in that review.

Topical Questions

Natalie McGarry: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Karen Bradley: Since we last had oral questions to my Department, it has launched the Government’s digital strategy, which will ensure that we have the infrastructure, regulation and skills that we need to build a world-leading digital economy that works for everyone. The Dormant Assets Commission identified a potential £2 billion in such assets, which could open up new streams of funding for good causes, and we are considering the best way to proceed on that. I visited South Korea for the third Korea-UK Creative Industries Forum, launched the UK-Korea year of culture, and signed a joint statement on co-operating on the content industry. Finally, I am sure that at least most Members will join me in wishing the England team well this weekend in their attempt to break New Zealand’s record for the most consecutive wins in top-level rugby.

Natalie McGarry: To echo what my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) said, the Secretary of State will be well aware that the maximum stake on fixed odds betting terminals is £100, which is 50 times the permitted cap on other high-street fruit machines. That particularly affects areas of severe deprivation, as there is great proliferation of these machines on high streets in such areas right across the UK. Does the Secretary of State recognise that that is an anomaly in gambling regulation and that far tougher regulation is required?

Karen Bradley: As the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), just said, we will make an announcement on this in the spring.

Rebecca Pow: I know that you are a tennis fan, Mr Speaker, but women’s cricket is going from strength to strength. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Somerset county cricket ground on being selected as one of just four  locations to host the international women’s world cup this year? The big match to get to is England  Sri Lanka, which is on Sunday 2 July. I shall be there, and you are warmly invited, Mr Speaker, as are all the ministerial team.

Tracey Crouch: I am sure that we all share my hon. Friend’s excitement at the women’s cricket world cup returning to England this summer. We are not alone in looking forward to the tournament; I understand that a record number of tickets have been sold for the final at Lord’s, which is great news. Hon. Members may be interested to know that the first games of the tournament will coincide with Women’s Sport Week, which will provide further opportunities to celebrate women’s sport and encourage participation.

John Bercow: The hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) is permanently excited, not only about matters of sport, but about all matters under the sun, as far as I can tell.

Tom Watson: Does the Secretary of State feel bound by the 2015 Conservative party manifesto?

Karen Bradley: Yes.

Tom Watson: Ah, very good. That is interesting, because that manifesto promised to lift the number of women on sports’ governing bodies to 25% by 2017, but it is 2017 already, and we have not achieved that. Did the Secretary of State think that nobody would notice, or, like the Chancellor on national insurance, did she not bother to read the manifesto?

Karen Bradley: We will be at 30% in 2017, which exceeds the manifesto commitment, because of the Government’s work on reforming sports governance, and our work with governing bodies to make sure that we have the right diversity and representation on those bodies.

Sarah Wollaston: Suicide is the leading cause of death of young people and the biggest killer of men under 50. The Secretary of State will know that there are clear links between certain types of media reporting and an increase in suicide rates. Will she join me in commending the work done by Samaritans through its media guidelines, and its tireless work to reduce suicide rates? Will she meet me to discuss the findings in the Health Committee’s report on preventing suicide, which is out today, given the role of the media, social media and the internet, and to discuss what we can do to reduce rates?

Karen Bradley: I commend my hon. Friend for her work on the Health Committee and look forward to reading the report. She is right that the media have an incredibly important role in helping to prevent suicides, not to cause them. I will, of course, sit down with her to discuss the matter.

Clive Lewis: Is the Minister aware that more than 300 local newspapers have closed in the past 10 years? While Members might  enjoy reading about skateboarding ducks, such newspapers are also a critical part of our democracy. Will the Minister therefore join me in supporting the National Union of Journalists in its “Local News Matters” campaign and week, and will he meet the union to discuss this critical part of our democracy?

Matthew Hancock: Absolutely. Local newspapers are incredibly important. As constituency MPs we all engage with them, as well as with the national media. I will be happy to meet the NUJ and take part in the week, as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Lucy Frazer: Ely cathedral has benefited from funding for essential building work from the first world war centenary cathedral repairs fund. The cathedral makes a significant and real contribution to community life. What future long-term funding is there for cathedrals?

Tracey Crouch: I was delighted recently to announce additional funding for many cathedrals around the country, including Ely. Cathedrals play an important part in our appreciation of heritage in the United Kingdom, so we continue to support the Heritage Lottery Fund to ensure that it continues to invest in cathedrals and other buildings of great importance.

Chris Elmore: S4C is a much-loved Welsh language public service broadcaster that was hard fought for. I am sure that the Ministers on the Treasury Bench—and you, Mr Speaker—watch it whenever they are in Wales. What are the Government doing to safeguard the future prominence of public service broadcasters, especially with regard to nations’ services?

Matthew Hancock: The prominence of PSBs is important. We are ensuring that S4C gets the funding that it needs—more than £6 million last year and more than £6 million next year. We have repeatedly made it clear that we strongly support S4C, which was a great Tory invention.

Tim Loughton: In a woeful performance before the Home Affairs Committee earlier this week, managers from Google, Twitter and Facebook admitted that they do virtually nothing proactively to reduce hate speech, extremism or child abuse from being hosted on their sites. Is it not time that we proactively pursued a policy similar to German proposals that would see social media companies penalised with large fines if they failed to take down such sites within 24 hours, or to prevent them in the first place?

Tracey Crouch: I saw my hon. Friend’s comments about this in the newspapers this morning, and I reassure him that the Government are determined to do everything that we can to stamp out hate crime, which has absolutely no place in society. We have some of the strongest legislation on hate crime, and we expect social media companies to respond quickly to incidents of abusive behaviour on their networks. However, there is much more that we can do. We have just announced work on an internet safety strategy, which I will take forward  with other colleagues, that is aimed at making Britain the safest country in the world for children and young people online.

Ian Murray: Many of my constituents have contacted me with concerns about children and young people accessing extreme internet pornography. Will the Minister tell me what the Government are doing to work with Ofcom and internet service providers to protect children and young people?

Matthew Hancock: This is an important point. The Digital Economy Bill brings forward age verification processes so that all pornography cannot be accessed by those under the age of 18. ISPs will be required to block sites that do not put such age verification in place—that is incredibly important. The Bill is in the Lords at the moment but it will come back to this House shortly.

Amanda Solloway: I add my excitement to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), because the women’s cricket world cup will actually launch in Derby. I recently discovered my inner warrior when playing rugby with England Rugby and my local Derby team—in fact, I made my first tackle—so will the Secretary of State tell me what we are doing to encourage more women to play sports?

Karen Bradley: I know from personal experience that Derby has fantastic sporting opportunities for everyone. It is incredibly important that more women play sport and feel that they can take part. The “This Girl Can” campaign, for which I am sure my hon. Friend has seen the television advertisements, is part of that, as is the fantastic women’s cricket world cup. I know that one of the matches is in Derby, but I have to confess that I am going to the one in Leicester.

Gavin Newlands: Following on from the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), I met Realgrassroots, which explained that it had been campaigning against the exploitation of young footballers since 2010 and that the Scottish Parliament is investigating the issue. Will the sports Minister meet me to discuss it further, and commit to ensuring that football clubs abide by basic employment legislation, the enforcement of which is reserved?

Tracey Crouch: I am always delighted to meet honourable colleagues, and I would be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman, too.

ATTORNEY GENERAL

The Attorney General was asked—

Great Repeal Bill

Marion Fellows: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union on the requirement for legislative consent motions for the proposed great repeal Bill.

Jeremy Wright: I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues, including with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, on various issues of importance  to the Government. The Government will publish the great repeal Bill in due course, and the content of the Bill will determine the process to take it forward.

Marion Fellows: Last month, the Secretary of State for Scotland confirmed that a legislative consent motion would be required from the Scottish Parliament for the great repeal Bill, but in his answer just now the Attorney General stopped well short of that. If the UK Government’s position is the same as the Secretary of State for Scotland’s, will a legislative consent motion be required?

Jeremy Wright: The hon. Lady tempts me to explore what will be in the great repeal Bill. I am not going to do that, but she knows, and I am sure her colleagues know, that if the Bill affects the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament or the executive competence of the Scottish Government, there will need to be a legislative consent motion.

David Nuttall: Does my right hon. and learned Friend share my concern that people might be slightly misled by our referring to the proposed Bill as the great repeal Bill? Although it will repeal the European Communities Act 1972, it is actually the great continuity Bill, because its other purpose is to transfer the body of EU law into UK law.

Jeremy Wright: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. He is right to say that this Bill will repeal the 1972 Act, and that is a significant step in this country’s history, but it will also, as he says, make sure that we do not have huge amounts of disruptive change for business, industry and individuals, and we will try to make sure that there is as much continuity on the day after departure as there was on the day before departure, where that is feasible.

Mark Durkan: Does the Attorney General envisage that there will be consent motions under EVEL provisions in respect of any of the potential clauses in the great repeal Bill?

Jeremy Wright: Again, we shall have to wait and see the content of the Bill, but it is unlikely—given what is likely to be in the Bill, and given the purpose of the Bill—that we will be looking at very many areas, if any at all, that do not affect the entire United Kingdom.

Nigel Huddleston: Can the Attorney General clarify whether any of the devolved Administrations effectively have a legal veto over our decision to leave the European Union?

Jeremy Wright: I can, and they do not.

Chris Bryant: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that the Bill will not be called the great repeal Bill?

Jeremy Wright: I suspect that we will find a rather more technical title for the Bill when it comes forward.

Richard Arkless: I must admit to being confused by the Attorney General’s answers. Clearly, the great repeal Bill, as indicated by  the Supreme Court, will affect devolved competences. The Secretary of State for Scotland has said an LCM is required. Why are the Government hesitant? Can the Attorney General not be clear? Will an LCM be required for the great repeal Bill, because it affects devolved competences?

Jeremy Wright: The Supreme Court was not deciding on this Bill; it was deciding on a Bill that the Government have now passed, and which I hope will receive Royal Assent very shortly. However, in relation to the contents of this Bill, whatever it ends up being called, the hon. Gentleman will have to be patient and wait until we see it. As I set out to his colleagues, there is a clear set of expectations as to when LCMs will be required, and the Government will honour those expectations.

Economic Crime

Diana R. Johnson: What steps the Government are taking to ensure that the Crown Prosecution Service has adequate resources to tackle serious fraud and other economic crimes.

Robert Buckland: The Crown Prosecution Service anticipated increases in complex cases such as fraud ahead of the last spending review, and there was indeed a 14% increase in fraud and forgery cases last year, but, importantly, the conviction rate stayed stable at 86%.

Diana R. Johnson: With a third of the workforce cut since 2010—400 prosecutors and 1,000 administrators and caseworkers—does the Solicitor General really consider that the CPS is able to deal with these complex fraud and economic cases, and will not any further cuts leave it in a really bad state to prosecute?

Robert Buckland: I assure the hon. Lady that the allocation of resources for the prosecution of fraud has increased within the CPS. There are now over 200 specialist fraud prosecutors, not just here in London but across the country in important regional centres, and that number is set to increase to 250 in the months ahead, so the CPS is really placing an important priority on this.

Bob Neill: Does the Solicitor General agree that the work of the Crown Prosecution Service in this area is very much complemented in cases of really serious economic fraud by the work of the Serious Fraud Office, which has been transformed under the leadership of David Green, resulting in the recovery of over £500 million of ill-gotten gains? Does he agree that the model of the Serious Fraud Office does this country great credit and will be of increasing value to us in future?

Robert Buckland: I am grateful to the Chairman of the Justice Committee. He is right to highlight the recent successes of the SFO in collecting millions of pounds for the taxpayer as a result of deferred prosecution agreements. I think the Roskill model, which brings together investigators and prosecutors in one unit, works very well.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: Picking up on the point made by the Chairman of the Select Committee, does not the existence of the Serious Fraud Office reduce pressure on the Crown Prosecution Service in terms of prosecuting big-ticket economic crime? Will the Solicitor General therefore guarantee that the Serious Fraud Office will continue to exist as it is and will not be merged with the Crown Prosecution Service or the National Crime Agency?

Robert Buckland: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government are at all times under a duty to review the mechanism by which we tackle economic crime, because it is a question not just of criminality but of national security. The Government are therefore right to examine the situation. As I said, I think the Roskill model works extremely well.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: I did not detect a guarantee in that answer. A month ago, the Solicitor General praised the work of the director of the Serious Fraud Office and how he had enhanced the role of the Serious Fraud Office in our national life. I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman has fine persuasive skills, so if he will not give a guarantee, will he at least undertake to go to see the Prime Minister to speak about the advantages of the Serious Fraud Office and having investigatory and prosecuting services under one roof?

Robert Buckland: I am happy to indicate to the hon. Gentleman that I have regular conversations with ministerial colleagues about all these issues. I praise David Green for the work he has done in leading the SFO. I will continue to make the case for the Roskill model.

Philip Hollobone: I suspect that those who have the necessary financial expertise to investigate, uncover, prosecute and prove complex financial fraud will probably get paid a lot more in the private sector working for business or the City. What can the Solicitor General do to ensure that the right people with the right skills are retained by the CPS and the SFO?

Robert Buckland: My hon. Friend knows that the SFO operates a model of funding that means it can be quite flexible as regards particular investigations. The important point is that we get the right people with the right specific expertise in particular types of serious fraud. Flexibility is the most important principle.

Tim Loughton: Everybody knows that there is a lot of hot money in the London high-end residential market, especially coming from Russia, and there are extensive reporting regulations on financial advisers and agents, so why have there been so few prosecutions for money laundering in this area?

Robert Buckland: I share my hon. Friend’s concern about this. He will be glad to know that the provisions in the Criminal Finances Bill, which I hope will become law very soon, will enhance the powers of prosecutors and investigators in going after ill-gotten gains with new measures such as unexplained wealth orders, which will help us to deal with the perpetrators of this type  of fraud.

Domestic Violence

Paul Blomfield: What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the effectiveness of the Crown Prosecution Service in prosecuting cases of domestic violence.

Mike Kane: What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the effectiveness of the Crown Prosecution Service in prosecuting cases of domestic violence.

Jeremy Wright: The Prime Minister has recently restated her personal, and the Government’s collective, commitment to tackling domestic violence and abuse. My colleagues in Cabinet and I will work together to take that forward. That work will include considering how we can support the CPS in bringing prosecutions against perpetrators of domestic violence.

Paul Blomfield: Ashiana, which is a great Sheffield charity working on domestic violence in the black, Asian, minority ethnic and refugee communities, has raised its concerns with me over the appallingly low prosecution rates for female genital mutilation and honour-based violence. The Attorney General will know that there have been no successful prosecutions for FGM. I am sure he shares my concern about that, but what is he going to do about it?

Jeremy Wright: I do share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about that. He may be aware that there are often considerable evidential difficulties in proving these offences in court, but that does not mean that we should not bring appropriate cases before criminal courts and seek to gain convictions. The Crown Prosecution Service will continue to do that. In relation to domestic violence more broadly, he may know that the volume and conviction rate of prosecutions are rising, on the basis of the last year for which we have figures compared with the year before, but he is right to point out specific areas where we need to do better.

Mike Kane: Survivors of domestic abuse in my constituency in the excellent Safe Spots group tell me that right out of the gate, they cannot access the criminal justice system because they have to pay a discretionary fee to their doctor for a note to access legal aid, which can cost up to £175. Will the Attorney General consider talking to his Department of Health colleagues about whether we can scrap this fee for those people?

Jeremy Wright: I will certainly explore the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises. I think he is indicating that there are a number of different things that we need to do to support those who are victims of domestic violence. This is not solely a criminal justice issue, but if people are to access the criminal justice system, we need to do as much as we can to make the process as easy it possibly can be for them. If victims of domestic violence are unwilling to give evidence, that should not necessarily be the end of a prosecution. We have seen recently with the use of body-worn video cameras that the police can sometimes give evidence that can secure a conviction, even if the victim is not prepared to give evidence.

Andrew Stephenson: Will the Attorney General work with the Justice Secretary to ensure that changes to the law on domestic abusers cross-examining their victims are fit for purpose, and that they adequately protect victims in our family courts?

Jeremy Wright: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. He will know that in a criminal context, courts already have the authority to stop alleged domestic violence perpetrators cross-examining their alleged victims directly. Family courts need to have such a power, too. He will know, I am sure, that the Government intend to make sure that they do have that power, and I understand that that will form part of a Bill that will come before the House very shortly.

Violence Against Women and Girls

Amanda Solloway: What steps the Crown Prosecution Service is taking to increase the number of prosecutions for violence against women and girls.

Lucy Frazer: What steps the Crown Prosecution Service is taking to increase the number of prosecutions for violence against women and girls.

Robert Buckland: The CPS is prosecuting and convicting more defendants of domestic abuse, rape, sexual offences and child sexual abuse than ever before. Under the cross-Government violence against women and girls strategy, the CPS has committed to a number of actions between now and 2020 to ensure the effective prosecution of these offences.

Amanda Solloway: What is the CPS doing in the Derbyshire area to ensure that more perpetrators of violence against women and girls are brought to justice?

Robert Buckland: I know that my hon. Friend has a great interest in and concern about these serious matters. I am happy to tell her that in the last year, 1,805 cases were charged by the CPS—a rise to 70.6% compared with the figure for the previous year—and 1,867 cases resulted in a conviction. The conviction rate in Derbyshire is running at 4.4% higher than the national average.

Lucy Frazer: In Cambridgeshire in 2015-16 there was an increase in the number of convictions for violence against women and girls to 1,031. What is being done to use technology to improve the gathering of evidence for these crimes?

Robert Buckland: As my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General has just mentioned, the CPS and the police are embracing the use of technology. The use of body-worn cameras, which is being rolled out across the country, will transform conviction rates and the number of guilty pleas when the evidence is clear and overwhelming in these cases.

Peter Bone: Much of the violence against women and children is caused by human traffickers. Does the Solicitor General welcome the announcement today of an investment of £6 million by the Home Secretary in fighting modern-day slavery? We are really leading Europe on this issue.

Robert Buckland: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to link modern-day slavery with violence against women and girls. He knows from his leadership on this issue that if there is a co-ordinated approach to these problems, victims can be identified and perpetrators can be brought to justice. This is yet another welcome milestone along the road in our world leadership on these issues.

Article 50

Natalie McGarry: What the legal and administrative costs incurred by the Government were of the Supreme Court appeal on article 50.

Jeremy Wright: The article 50 litigation concerned an important constitutional issue that it was right for the Supreme Court to consider. The Court considered both the Government’s appeal in England and Wales proceedings and five devolution questions referred by the courts in Northern Ireland after a judgment favourable to the Government. The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has committed to publishing the total cost figures in due course.

Natalie McGarry: The Secretary of State for Exiting the EU has praised the article 50 debate as among the best he has heard in the Chamber. Will the Attorney General attest whether the cost to the public purse of preventing this House from having a meaningful and democratic debate was well spent or a waste of public money?

Jeremy Wright: It is not a waste of public money to explore an issue of this constitutional significance in the highest court in the land, and that is what happened. Of course, if the hon. Lady were right that this was a complete waste of money, three Supreme Court Justices would not have found in favour of the Government’s arguments. She will also be aware—I must gently point this out to her—that some of the money spent by the Government was spent on responding to arguments made by the Scottish Government that were rejected unanimously by the Supreme Court.

Tom Pursglove: I think that just proves that you’re damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t with the Scottish National party. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, ultimately, we cannot put a cost on defending democratic principles such as this?

Jeremy Wright: My hon. Friend is right. Again, I think there is merit in ensuring that the highest court in the land has the chance to consider a very significant set of constitutional questions. It has done that and produced its judgment. The Government have complied with that judgment, and the House of Commons and the House of Lords have passed a Bill accordingly.

Criminal Corporate Liability

David Amess: What steps the Government are taking to reform criminal corporate liability.

Robert Buckland: The Bribery Act 2010 “failure to prevent” offence is holding corporate offenders to account for criminal activity. We are introducing a new offence of failing to prevent tax evasion in the Criminal Finances Bill. Building on this, the Government have published a call for evidence to explore the options for further reform, including extending the “failure to prevent” offence.

David Amess: Will my hon. and learned Friend look very carefully at the way in which Uber operates? In the past year, it paid £411,000 in tax. I have been inundated with complaints from traditional taxi drivers about the seemingly unfair, unscrupulous and unregulated way in which Uber deploys its drivers.

Robert Buckland: I listened with concern to my hon. Friend’s question. As I have said, there will be a new corporate offence of failing to prevent tax evasion. If there is evidence of criminality, I urge my hon. Friend and others to report such matters to the police.

Hare Coursing

Dr Caroline Johnson: What discussions he has had with the Director of Public Prosecutions on rates of prosecution for hare coursing.

Robert Buckland: I have regular meetings with the Director of Public Prosecutions at which a variety of issues are discussed. The CPS takes the prosecution of hare coursing very seriously. I understand that the chief Crown prosecutor for the east midlands has recently had a meeting with the police and crime commissioner and the chief constable of Lincolnshire at which this issue was discussed.

Dr Caroline Johnson: Not only is hare coursing cruel to the hare, but it causes economic damage and is causing increasing fear in our rural communities. What is the CPS doing to ensure that prosecutions for hare coursing are successful, and to help to put a stop to this crime?

Robert Buckland: I know that my hon. Friend, who represents a rural constituency, is dealing with this issue and working with local farmers and others to try to combat it. Each Crown Prosecution Service area has a wildlife co-ordinator so that the knowledge needed to prosecute these offences is readily available. The CPS works closely with the police and other wildlife communities to tackle this serious scourge.

Imminent Threats

Rehman Chishti: What the Government’s policy is on which factors to take into account when deciding whether responding to an imminent threat is permitted under international law.

Jeremy Wright: It is the long-standing position of successive UK Governments that a state may use force in self-defence not only in response to armed attacks but to prevent an armed attack that is imminent. In each exercise of the use of force in self-defence, the UK asks itself questions such as: how certain is it that an attack will come; how soon do we believe an attack could be; what could be the scale of the attack;  could this be our last opportunity to take action; and is there anything else we could credibly do to prevent that attack?

Rehman Chishti: I thank the Attorney General for that answer. Does he agree with me that there is an important difference between the threats we face now and the threats that have not materialised but that may develop later?

Jeremy Wright: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and there is a significant difference between those two things. What I have sought to make clear is that the UK Government are saying they have authority under the law to respond to threats that have emerged, not to threats that may yet emerge in the future but have not yet done so.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Valerie Vaz: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

David Lidington: The business for the next week is as follows:
Monday 20 March—Second Reading of the Prisons and Courts Bill.
Tuesday 21 March—Remaining stages of the Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Bill [Lords] followed by a general debate on fuel poverty.
Wednesday 22 March—Remaining stages of the Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] followed by a general debate on exiting the European Union and global trade.
Thursday 23 March—Debate on a motion on compensation for Equitable Life policyholders followed by debate on a motion on the Social Mobility Commission state of the nation report. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 24 March—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 27 March will include:
Monday 27 March—Remaining stages of the Bus Services Bill [Lords].
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 27 and 30 March will be:
Monday 27 March—Debate on an e-petition relating to badger culling.
Thursday 30 March—Debate relating to the future of local and regional news providers.

Valerie Vaz: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business for next week. Can he confirm or deny rumours that the Queen’s Speech will be on 17 May?
I would like to wish everyone a very happy St Patrick’s day for tomorrow. I do not know whether you know, Mr Speaker, but it traditionally marks an interruption to Lenten fasting. Perhaps the Leader of the House or even the Chief Whip will say, “Salt and vinegar crisps all round” just to cheer up the troops.
This has been a week of delay, incompetence and confusion. The big six energy companies have raised their prices and consumers have been overpaying. In response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), in which he stated that E.ON raised its prices by 14% and SSE by 8%, the Minister said:
“It has been reported by Ofgem that there is no reason to increase prices…The time is up for these companies.”—[Official Report, 14 March 2017; Vol. 623, c. 177.]
What does the Minister do? Instead of acting, he  publishes a Green Paper. The Government must take a leaf out of the 2015 Labour manifesto and step in to put a cap on prices now—no more delay. In contrast with the obsession about how someone eats a bacon sandwich, it was a popular and costed policy. May we have a debate on what powers the Government will use to protect consumers immediately?
Speaking of manifestos, it is because the Government got away with it before—they said no top-down reorganisation of the NHS but they did it; they said in  coalition no increase in tuition fees but they did it—that they thought they could do it again. There is a real piece of work to be done on national insurance contributions. Bizarrely, the Government instigated the Taylor review, which is due in June, having already put the policy through. They should have given businesses the time to plan for the increase. It is very hard for small businesses to find extra money suddenly. Instead of coming to the Chamber, the Prime Minister took to the podium in Brussels to announce that the policy had been deferred. The Chancellor came to the Chamber on Wednesday. The Chancellor seems to have fallen down his own black hole—tell that to Stephen Hawking.
What of the confusion and chaos that is Brexit? As more and more Select Committee reports are published, may we have a timetable of when and how they will be debated? The Government seem to be fixated on an unamended Bill going through Parliament, rather than preparing the country for what is to follow. The Foreign Affairs Committee report on the implications of no deal said that the Government refused to give evidence, saying it would be nothing more than an exercise in guesswork. However, the Committee’s report stated:
“The consequences of such a failure are far from ‘an exercise in guesswork’. They are, in scope if not in detail, largely predictable—and, in…evidence…have been predicted.”
The report recommended that each Department should
“produce a ‘no deal’ plan…setting out proposals to mitigate…risks.”
Will the Leader of the House tell us whether that will happen, and whether those plans will be reported to the House? Pages 97 and 98 of the report “Brexit: trade in goods”, published by the other place, remind us that
“The EU is, by a significant margin, the UK’s biggest trading partner… Many UK businesses cannot easily substitute their imports from the EU with UK products.”
What help will businesses be given to secure those new suppliers—or are the Government abandoning small businesses?
Let me now raise the issue of the west midlands leaflet. Apparently, a leaflet produced by another candidate for the post of west midlands mayor—a member of the same party—suggested that Siôn Simon did not have any experience. In fact, Siôn Simon is a former Member of Parliament, a former Minister and a Member of the European Parliament, so he is quite experienced enough to take the West Midlands forward after Brexit.
Women are not just for International Women’s Day, but for life. We are currently celebrating women’s history month as we continue to tell “herstory”. On 21 March, in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Room, there will be a lecture on Constance Markievicz, who was the first woman to be elected to Parliament but did not take her seat. International Anti-discrimination Day falls on the same date. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on “Race in the workplace: The McGregor-Smith Review”? Staff at the Equality and Human Rights Commission are being sacked, but it is that organisation that should be implementing the recommendations of the report, which states:
“If BME talent is fully utilised, the economy could receive a£24 billion boost.”
That would fill the £2 billion hole in the Budget.
Not only is it good for the economy to use all the talents, but using all the talents is the right thing to do for the common good, in a good society.

David Lidington: Let me begin by joining the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) in wishing everyone, particularly our colleagues from Northern Ireland and colleagues with Irish ancestry, a happy St Patrick’s day for tomorrow. It is one of those occasions which, whatever the divisions in Northern Ireland, tends to bring all sides together in a common celebration.
The hon. Lady asked whether I could confirm or deny a possible date for the Queen’s Speech. I am afraid that the answer is no.
The Government have made very clear that we are pressing ahead with the Taylor review, which will be a very important study of and report on the way in which digital technology is changing our notions of employment. I am sure that Matthew Taylor will produce a number of specific and challenging recommendations, which the Government will want to take seriously.
The hon. Lady asked about exit from the EU. There is provision in our arrangements for debates on Select Committee reports, which from time to time are chosen either by the Backbench Business Committee or the Liaison Committee in the time that is allotted to them. I do not think that the hon. Lady can fault the willingness of Ministers—and, in particular, the willingness of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union—to appear before the House and before Select Committees to answer the questions that Members quite reasonably ask. Detailed work is taking place, not only in my right hon. Friend’s Department but throughout Whitehall, to examine the potential impact of various possible outcomes of the negotiations on the different sectors of our economy, and it is obviously sensible for us to consult those sectors closely about possible scenarios.
I am happy to join the hon. Lady in celebrating women’s history month. I hope that, as well as a celebration of the achievements of people such as Constance   Markievicz and Nancy Astor, there will be a proper salute to the two women Prime Ministers of this country.
I completely agree with the hon. Lady about the importance of harnessing all the talent and energy of our fellow citizens from the black minority ethnic communities. While it is in part down to having the right sort of equalities and anti-discrimination legislation, I hope that the House acknowledges that getting it right also means encouraging people from those communities to believe that everything is possible for them in our country. I am heartened by having seen in the time that I have been in this place ever more men and women from our black and other minority communities playing a leading role in mainstream life in my constituency and nationally, whether in business, the media, the arts, the professions or politics at both local and national level.
I do not blame the hon. Lady for wanting to try to find something nice to say about the Labour candidate for the west midlands mayoral election, but while I am the first to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of people who serve in the European Parliament, I think that in respect of having executive authority for the midlands engine—one of the real heartlands of our national economic life—the commercial experience of Andy Street puts him head and shoulders above his competition.

ROYAL ASSENT

John Bercow: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2017
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017.

Business of the House

Proceedings resumed.

Bob Blackman: The Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), is unfortunately once again unable to be with us, so may I just gently remind my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that we have an ever-growing queue of applications for debates? Would he therefore consider allowing protected time, particularly on Thursdays, for Backbench Business debates? That might mean that this House would sit slightly later, but it would also mean that we could get at least two debates in and clear the decks.
Speaking on my own behalf, the Mayor of London has not only called in, but directed approval of, a planning application in Harrow which comprises two tower blocks next door to two-storey housing. The planning committee of Harrow Council has on a cross-party basis rejected this unacceptable planning application. The Mayor of London has called it in and directed approval, against the wishes of Harrow Council, all the residents and everyone—and not only that, it is hideous. May we have a debate on planning in London?

David Lidington: It was good to see the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee in his place earlier this week and I hope it will not be long before he is again playing a regular part in our Thursday exchanges. In the meantime, I say to my hon. Friend that we always take seriously the Backbench Business Committee’s requests for time, but the reality is that there is pressure on both Government and Backbench Business time and we must all select priorities. I am very happy to look at the case my hon. Friend and the Committee make for protected time on specific Thursdays, but I would be reluctant to agree a general rule for all Thursdays because sometimes Backbench Business debates peter out before the allotted time has been completed—that may be rare, but it does occasionally happen. I think my hon. Friend will acknowledge that we have in the past tried, where we know that there are statements coming, to protect the Backbench Business agenda.
On my hon. Friend’s point about Harrow, he, as always, speaks strongly on behalf of his constituents, and I am sure he will seek to catch your eye, Mr Speaker,  for a possible Adjournment debate.

Pete Wishart: May I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week and wish everybody a happy St Patrick’s day?
There is so much kicking around this morning that it is difficult to know where to start, but how about we start with securing an urgent statement on the Electoral Commission’s record fine on a political party for breaching electoral law? We need to hear in that statement that this Government are taking these allegations seriously, and not hitting out petulantly, as some Members have done this morning, at the Electoral Commission and treating it with contempt. Our electoral laws are  critically important to protecting our democracy, and the Conservative party will now be investigated by the Metropolitan police, just as I asked the police to do last  year. A sum of £70,000 is absolute peanuts to the Conservative party, so will the Leader of the House now say today that it will fully comply, and take part in every single one of those police investigations? This could well be the “cash for honours” of this Parliament.
May we have a debate on automotive manoeuvres? The screeching of yesterday’s U-turn on national insurance contributions is still ringing in our ears, and the skid marks go all the way from here to the doors of No. 10. I do not think we have ever seen a Budget unravel as dramatically as last week’s has done. Perhaps we need to get our Budgets manifesto-proofed, or perhaps we should get Laura Kuenssberg to deliver next year’s Budget from the Dispatch Box.
Lastly, will there be a statement from the Government approving a section 30 order to approve a legal independence referendum if, as is likely, the Scottish Parliament votes next week to request one? Surely there can be no case for standing in the way of democracy or defying the will of the democratically elected Parliament in Scotland. I say ever so gently to the Leader of the House that if this Government are thinking for one minute of standing in the way of Scottish democracy, that would be the biggest possible recruiting sergeant for the cause of Scottish independence.

David Lidington: The Government will of course consider carefully any recommendations from the Electoral Commission for a change in regulatory powers. We are already considering a number of possible changes to electoral arrangements, following the report by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir Eric Pickles) on electoral corruption. I have to say to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), however, that complaints from his party, of all parties, about the use of battle buses are more than a little odd. It is not exactly a secret that, at the 2015 general election, the Scottish National party flew Nicola Sturgeon from constituency to constituency in support of its candidates, which suggests to me that some of his party’s complaints in this respect are both spurious and hypocritical—

John Bercow: Order. The Leader of the House must not use that last word. He is a versatile fellow: he can use another word, and I feel sure that it will spew forth immediately.

David Lidington: I am happy to withdraw that, Mr Speaker. I make no allegation against any hon. Member, but I think that the party in question has not displayed consistency of approach when it comes to this matter.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about a referendum in Scotland. Obviously we will want to look at whatever request might come from the Scottish Parliament in due course when it has debated whatever motion is put before it, but I say gently to him that the autumn statement and the spring Budget together have given roughly £1.25 billion of extra spending to the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament, and that they could use that money to reduce the tax hikes on businesses and middle income families in Scotland. They could also use it to improve failing schools in Scotland, or to help struggling hospitals in Scotland. That would be a much better service to the people of Scotland than posturing about a further referendum.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: I call Mr Charles Walker.

Charles Walker: Oh sorry, Mr Speaker, you took me by surprise!

John Bercow: As the hon. Gentleman was standing and seeking to catch my eye, his expression of incredulity is perhaps a tad misplaced.

Charles Walker: And as I am only the Chair of the Procedure Committee, these things are lost on me!
May we have an urgent debate on the conduct of the Hertfordshire local enterprise partnership in relation to its possible misuse of £6.5 million of public money  to promote and ease a planning application on behalf of Veolia? The relationship between Veolia, the LEP, Hertfordshire County Council, the relevant planning authority and the owner of the Veolia contract is too close to carry the confidence of my constituents.

David Lidington: As always, my hon. Friend makes his point powerfully on behalf of his constituents. I note that he has been successful in securing an Adjournment debate on Thursday 23 March, so I am sure that he will pursue those arguments then.

John Bercow: He certainly has been.

Dawn Butler: I would like to sign my question. Is the Leader of the House aware  that 18 March marks the 14th anniversary of the UK Government’s recognising British sign language? Will he agree time to debate giving British sign language legal status like other recognised languages?

David Lidington: The hon. Lady has eloquently reminded us of the importance of British sign language to a number of our fellow citizens who live with deafness or a severe hearing impairment. The Department for Work and Pensions has under way a review of the provision of signing services in this country and has received several hundred submissions. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will bring forward the conclusions in due course. I can also tell the House that the Department for Education plans to accept British sign language as an alternative qualification to functional skills in English within apprenticeships, which I hope will be one step towards giving opportunities to more people who live with deafness to play a full part in the labour market.

David Amess: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate aimed at promoting projects to deter young people from drinking to excess and taking drugs? I recently saw the Smashed Project perform at St Thomas More High School, and I am convinced that a hard-hitting message can make a real impact.

David Lidington: I share my hon. Friend’s concern about the devastating impact that drug and alcohol misuse can have on the lives of too many young people and their families, who are often distraught about what has happened to a loved son or daughter. The Government take a broad approach to prevention, supporting investment in a range of different programmes. We announced  earlier this week new funding for Mentor UK to continue to deliver the ADEPIS programme, which includes a range of resources to give young people the tools and confidence they need to resist being drawn towards drug misuse in the first place.

Paul Flynn: When can we debate early-day motion 1079, which covers the House’s abject failure to deal with the potentially corrupt revolving door between ministerial office and outside jobs?
[That this House recalls former Prime Minister David Cameron’s condemnation in 2010 of politicians who are out to serve themselves and not the country by lobbying; notes the abject failure of the Government’s watchdog, the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, to reduce the abuses of the potentially corrupting revolving door between ministerial office and big business lobbying; and calls on the Government to establish an effective watchdog that would enhance the House’s reputation for probity, removing the opportunities for former Ministers to sell their inside knowledge and contacts for financial advantage by prohibiting their lobbying for companies they influenced or regulated in their Ministerial roles.]
The temptation is there for former Ministers to use their insider knowledge and contacts for their private gain. How is it right that the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, which is responsible for approving such appointments, saw fit to give its blessing to a former Minister receiving £13,000 a day in addition to his parliamentary salary? Does that not bring this House into deeper disrepute?

David Lidington: It is right that we have a committee that is not part of the Government and not a Committee of this House or the other place to make rulings on individual cases. It is important that former Ministers stick to the proper procedures in seeking clearance before taking on any new external appointment.

Christopher Chope: Now that the Government have expressed their determination to honour both the letter and the spirit of manifesto commitments, may we have an urgent debate on how the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government can be persuaded to honour the letter and the spirit of the Government’s commitment to Parliament and to my constituents on 7 December 2015, as reported in column 822 of Hansard, that they would not force structural change on any local authority against its will?

David Lidington: As he has done previously, my hon. Friend speaks strongly about the continued existence of Christchurch Borough Council. He will continue to press the matter strongly with Ministers, and I am sure that his opportunity will arise in an Adjournment debate at some point.

Rachael Maskell: Following a High Court judgment, the Government have to produce a new air quality plan by next month. Fifty thousand people a year die as a result of air pollution, which has an impact on my congested city of York. Even in Micklegate ward, we have five poor air quality hotspots. May we have debate in Government time about the steps that are needed ahead of the publication of the air quality plan so that we can have a real input into the Government’s plans?

David Lidington: The Government have given that very clear undertaking. There was a plan in place that the courts deemed to be inadequate, and the Government will respond to that court judgment by July. The right occasion for Parliament to consider the issue in greater detail will be when the plan is available.

Mike Freer: As the economy continues to thrive, the claimant rate in my constituency is just 1.9%, but the local economy is quite dependent on European workers. Can we have a debate in Government time on how we can have a sensible work permit system for those valuable workers post-Brexit?

David Lidington: My hon. Friend makes an important point and reminds us that, when debating immigration policy, we should not get trapped into criticising people who come here from European countries and elsewhere to play an important part in our economy by working hard, paying taxes and contributing to our society. As he knows, the Government are committed to trying to agree a reciprocal deal on the status of EU nationals here and British nationals in the 27 other EU countries at the earliest possible stage of the negotiations. Although we will need a system of immigration controls subsequent to our exit from the European Union, we are alive to the need to be sensitive to British industry’s continuing need to staff posts.

Margaret Ferrier: Last week the Leader of the House assured me that the Government are seeking urgent clarification from the Israeli authorities on the new law banning foreigners who call for the boycotting of illegal Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. There has been a week of absolute silence from the Foreign Office on that issue and, on Monday, Hugh Lanning, chair of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, was the first UK citizen to be deported from Israel following the passing of that law. May we please have a statement from the Foreign Office clarifying how the application of the law will affect UK passport holders and UK foreign policy?

David Lidington: The straight answer is that, since the hon. Lady raised the issue with me last week, we have not yet had the detailed clarification that we are seeking from the Israeli Government. As a result, the permanent secretary at the Foreign Office is raising the matter directly with Israeli officials this week.

Peter Bone: I am grateful for the fact that you have called me before calling any Liberal Democrat Member, Mr Speaker. This week unemployment, at 4.7%, was at its lowest rate since the summer of 1975. It has always been a rule of thumb that Labour Governments increase unemployment and Conservative Governments reduce it, but there is another link—[Interruption.] I apologise to Labour Members, but the link is clearly different. What happened in the summer of ’75? That was when the country decided to stay in the European Economic Community, so unemployment has gone up all the time we have been in, and now we are coming out, it is going down. May we have a debate on that?

John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman has already had the debate.

David Lidington: The growth in employment and the fall in unemployment should be welcomed unreservedly on both sides of the House, and it is due to the hard work and enterprise of British business in creating jobs and to the Government’s creating an economic climate in which businesses want to invest and are willing to hire people. I hope that every Member, whichever party they come from, will welcome the fact that unemployment is now at its lowest since 1975 and that employment is at its highest in our country’s history.

Keith Vaz: As the Leader of the House knows, next week marks the second anniversary of the conflict in Yemen that has resulted in the death of 10,000 Yemeni people and brought that country to the brink of famine. The Yemeni people now face the four horsemen of the apocalypse: al-Qaeda, Daesh, starvation and airstrikes. When can we have a debate on that important subject? Britain holds the pen on Yemen so far as that matter is concerned, and it is vital that the House is updated before Yemen slides into the greatest catastrophe of this century.

David Lidington: We all share the right hon. Gentleman’s sense of horror at what has happened in Yemen. The British Government are extremely active in the international work, but it would be foolish to pretend that we have a quick and easy solution to this conflict. We continue to support the tireless efforts of the UN special envoy to broker an agreement between the warring parties inside Yemen, just as we continue to commit large sums of our overseas aid budget to relieve humanitarian suffering in Yemen. That political work and that humanitarian work will continue.

Martin Vickers: In the unlikely event of the Scottish people following the advice of the Scottish National party and voting for independence, they would be very much poorer. Many of my constituents are already concerned about the foreign aid budget. May we have a debate on the aid budget, so that the Government could make it clear that they will not sanction an increase in order to bail out the Scots?

David Lidington: There is some really good news for Scotland: since 2010 employment in Scotland has gone up by 171,000; 90,000 fewer Scots are out of work,  and women’s employment in Scotland has gone up by 76,000. We should celebrate that.

Barry Sheerman: The Leader of the House might know that people in Huddersfield are deeply disappointed in a Budget that does so little for the NHS and for our hospital accident and emergency unit, which might be closed. But they are good people in Huddersfield, so they wanted me to prioritise today in this House the need to do something to save the children starving in east Africa. We must have a debate on that, raise consciousness about it and get this country to donate to save those children and families from starvation.

David Lidington: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the need to remember that humanitarian crisis in east Africa. The Department for International Development is extremely focused on that, but anything that can be done to raise public consciousness about  the need for charitable donations to supplement the Government’s work is very welcome.

Tom Pursglove: Last Friday, I visited Great Addington Church of England Primary School, where I was asked lots of difficult questions, inspired by the pupils’ visit to Parliament last year. They asked me to convey to the House their sincere appreciation for the excellent tour, and I ask the Leader of the House to join me in thanking the staff of the House for their help on that. May we have a debate next week about the important role that this place plays in educating young people about our democracy?

David Lidington: I am delighted that the pupils from Great Addington’s school enjoyed their visit. Obviously, they put their lessons to good use in interrogating my hon. Friend. That will prepare him for his future ministerial career, I am certain. I know that you have given very high priority to enhancing the House’s educational work, Mr Speaker. I certainly share that objective and am seeking to do this in programming my future external engagement. I hope that we all in our individual constituencies will try to interest young men and women in our work, because capturing the imagination of boys and girls at a young age is the surest way in which we can rebuild confidence in and enthusiasm for our democratic processes.

John Bercow: The answer from the Leader of the House is of great interest to me and to colleagues, but it may also be of considerable interest to a number of young people who are observing our proceedings from not very far away, at whom the Leader of the House, to his credit, is now smiling beatifically.

Emma Lewell-Buck: Race hate crime in the north-east is up by 48% since Brexit, and the English Defence League is to march again in South Shields this weekend. My constituents and I have always challenged extremism, and such groups are not welcome in South Shields, yet the process to have such marches banned is complex and arduous. Will the Government make a statement on what they are doing to stem the rise of racially charged demonstrations, which have no place in Britain?

David Lidington: I face the challenge of EDL marches in my constituency. A balance has to be struck between the rights of freedom of expression and freedom to demonstrate, which we all cherish in the United Kingdom—and they cannot be only for the people with whom we agree—and the importance of demonstrating our rejection of extremist groups. My view is that the best way to respond to the EDL or similar groups is for the entire community to speak and to show in their actions that they utterly reject and are repelled by the venom and hatred that those groups seek to sow in our society. In particular, those of us in leadership positions should show solidarity with the minority groups who feel so threatened.

David Nuttall: There are housing association tenants in my Bury constituency who would like the opportunity to buy their property. May we please have a statement on the progress on extending the right to buy to housing association tenants?

David Lidington: In last year’s autumn statement, the Chancellor announced a large-scale regional pilot that will enable more than 3,000 housing association tenants  to buy their own home. We are undertaking pilots to ensure that we get the policy right. We will test its key features and look at the evidence to decide how we can take forward the scheme.

Angela Smith: Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union admitted that the Government have made no full assessment of the potential impact on the UK economy of our leaving the EU without a deal. May we have a debate in Government time on that specific issue so that the House can hold the Government to account on that very important matter?

David Lidington: There will be an opportunity in the debate on EU exit and international trade that I announced in the business statement. I should correct the hon. Lady, though: my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said yesterday that the Government are looking across the piece at the impact of our leaving the EU on various sectors of the economy. He was asked about a new overall economic assessment, and said that his Department, and others in Whitehall, are in the process of carrying out a programme of rigorous and extensive analytical work on a sector-by-sector basis. That, surely, is the constructive way to approach the matter.

Pauline Latham: We all know that the Government are very keen on manifesto commitments and following through on them. I think all parties would welcome a debate on what the Government mean by “shortly”. Before Christmas, we had a debate on elephants and the ivory trade, and were told then that a decision would come out shortly. In February, we were told again that it was coming out shortly. May we have a statement on when we will know when we are going to follow through on the Conservative manifesto promise to ban the trade in ivory?

David Lidington: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs plans to take the decision and announce her proposed way forward soon.

John Bercow: If we could try to speed up, that would be really good, because there is a statement to follow.

Chris Elmore: The Leader of the House will no doubt be aware that at the recent Beacon awards, which are known as the Oscars of the further education sector, Bridgend College, which sits in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), won an award. Will he find some time for a debate on the success of the FE sector, particularly its contribution to enabling people of any age to continue on their learning path?

David Lidington: The hon. Gentleman is right to remind us of the importance of that sector, and I join him in congratulating Bridgend College on its achievement.

Rehman Chishti: Medway hospital in my constituency has been in special measures for nearly four years. The staff and the leadership in partnership with the Government have worked tirelessly to improve standards. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to the excellent staff who have won  awards for their work, including Excellence in Maternity Care? May we have an urgent statement on the performance of hospitals in special measures?

David Lidington: It is always tough when staff have to face up to criticisms of their record and to see their institution placed in special measures. I am delighted to hear from my hon. Friend that staff at Medway hospital have responded so positively, and I hope that their efforts soon receive the public tributes that I know that he hopes for.

Clive Efford: Yet another GP surgery is closing in my constituency—the sixth in recent times. The patients are being dispersed to other surgeries, but the length of time that people have to wait for a GP appointment is growing. Can we have a statement from the Minister about the performance of NHS England in providing GP services, because the situation in my constituency is intolerable?

David Lidington: We want to see GP practices open for longer so that more people can benefit from the excellent services they offer. Some 17 million patients have already benefited from evening and weekend appointments. We have increased investment in general practice by nearly £2.5 billion, and there are 1,100 more GPs now compared with 2010. I will certainly draw to the Secretary of State’s attention the particular difficulty in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.

Andrew Stephenson: May we have a debate on the northern powerhouse schools strategy? Last month saw the launch of the Pendle challenge, with more than 80 organisations involved in the provision of education from nought to 18 years coming together to improve the aspirations and achievements of young people in Pendle. I am keen to see how we can better work together across the north on this issue.

David Lidington: As my hon. Friend says, it is really important that we look to raise not just the standards of achievement by children in schools, but their aspirations and their expectations about what is possible in their lives. The northern powerhouse schools strategy aims to do just that, which is why the Government are putting in £70 million over the course of this Parliament. I hope that we will see a further announcement on that before very long.

Jessica Morden: Given that, shamefully, there was no mention of help for the WASPI women in the Budget, can we have another opportunity to speak on behalf of the women affected, including my constituent who was denied, with little notice, the chance to retire when she had planned and has now found out that she is terminally ill, as her voice and others deserve to be heard?

David Lidington: I point the hon. Lady towards questions to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on Monday 27 March. There has been about £1 billion of investment in transitional arrangements to help those women who are worst affected by the equalisation of pension age. None the less, the equalisation of pension age did have cross-party support in this House when it was brought in.

Hywel Williams: Millions of people have installed cavity wall insulation successfully, but many have experienced failures, leading to damp, fungal infection and structural difficulties in their homes. Those people are often elderly and disabled, and they thought that they were participating in a Government scheme. The industry’s response has been defensive and evasive most of the time, and the Government seem to be hoping to keep out of what could be a very expensive mess. Can we have an early debate on the CWI scandal?

David Lidington: Without checking, I do not know to what extent this is a legislative and regulatory problem and to what extent it is a matter of consumer law to be resolved in the normal way. If the hon. Gentleman wants to write to me with details about his experience, I will happily consider the case.

Judith Cummins: I am sure that I am not the only Member of this House to be disappointed that the Chancellor made no mention of extra police funding in his Budget statement last week. Cuts to frontline policing in Bradford South have been profound, with 75 fewer officers engaged in neighbourhood policing today than in 2012. Will the Leader of the House allocate time for a debate on this important issue?

David Lidington: The spending total for the police, as for every other Government service, was announced at the time of the spending review. Crimes traditionally measured by the independent Crime Survey for England and Wales have actually fallen by a third since 2010; they are now at a record low. That shows that the police have been extremely professional in managing their budgets to ensure that the public are protected and that crime comes down.

Chris Stephens: May we have a debate or a statement on funding third sector organisations to assist the long-term unemployed into work? I refer the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1003, which seeks to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the GalGael Trust, an organisation in my constituency that maintains the skills and traditions of woodwork and metalwork.
[That this House recognises the 20th Anniversary of the founding of an inspiring and life-changing community project based in Govan, the GalGael Trust, founded by the late Colin McLeod whose vision for the project is still upheld today; notes that this groundbreaking boat-building and woodcraft workshop upholds the proud Glaswegian traditions of hard work, community spirit and skilled craftwork whilst changing lives by restoring pride through achievement and developing skills; further notes that GalGael shows that supporting the long-term unemployed with respect and a creative vision can be more effective and engaging than traditional methods; notes that re-using Scottish timber from landfill respects the environment and the roots of the project lie in that vision of positive action coming from protest; and supports the view that the sustainability of this project is due to the inspiring people who have been at the heart of the community in Govan, working to maintain the skills and traditions of crafts in woodwork and metalwork, and building a future whilst honouring the past.]
Does the Leader of the House agree that the sustainability and finance of such organisations can help the long-term unemployed?

David Lidington: I do not know any more about the GalGael Trust than what the hon. Gentleman just told the House. I am happy to salute the work that it does and the work of many other such organisations in all parts of the United Kingdom in trying to provide mentoring and support, which is often so valuable to people who have been unemployed for a very long time in helping them have the confidence and basic skills to get back into the marketplace.

Steve McCabe: Yesterday, there were three separate illegal Traveller encampments across my constituency. This problem plagued my constituents for most of last year and is taking up where it left off. I recognise that Travellers have rights—as do my constituents, especially to enjoy the public parks that they pay for. This issue does not just affect my constituency; it is a problem right across the country, and there is real confusion about the law and enforcement. May we have a debate in Government time where Ministers set out clearly the Government’s expectations about how the problem of illegal encampments should be tackled?

David Lidington: This might be good material for a Backbench Business debate, as it does indeed affect a large number of constituencies. Sanctions and processes are available to both local authorities and the police to deal with the problem of illegal encampments. I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think what riles residents more than anything else is the sense that they are expected to stick by the rules and obey the law when it comes to any kind of planning matter, yet they see people getting away with it apparently scot-free, which they quite rightly get angry about.

Kate Green: A constituent recently came to see me about his zero-hours employment with the leading automotive retailer Evans Halshaw, where he has worked for six years with no sick pay and no job security. May we have a debate on how we can strengthen the legislation in relation to this kind of insecure employment?

David Lidington: Of course, it was a Conservative-led Government that outlawed exclusivity clauses in zero-hours contracts. Although we keep a close watch on this—I am sure it is one of things that Matthew Taylor’s review will want to look at—it remains the case that fewer than 3% of the workforce see a zero-hours contract as their main job, and roughly 70% of those people say that they are happy with the number of hours that they work.

Stewart McDonald: The Leader of the House is of course no philistine, so he will know that this year is the bicentenary of the birth of the eminent Scottish architect Alexander “Greek” Thomson. Will he join me in congratulating the Alexander Thomson Society on putting together a whole year of  events to remember the architect’s work, and may we have a debate on his contribution to Scottish-built heritage?

John Bercow: This is the question that the hon. Gentleman would have asked if he had been present for his question at Department for Culture, Media and Sport questions. He was not, so he did not, and he is therefore doing it now. I just thought I would make that by way of a public information statement.

David Lidington: I am happy to pay tribute to the work of the Alexander Thomson Society. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will pen a brief note to all Members so that we know where we can go to see more of Thomson’s work when we come to Scotland.

Justin Madders: In recent weeks, there have been a number of reports of foxes being hunted by hounds in Cheshire. Graphic and disturbing images have been plastered all over the internet. This barbaric practice is illegal, and I thought this Government were keen to implement the will of the people. May we please have a debate on what more can be done to uphold the law?

David Lidington: The enforcement of the law is, rightly, a matter not for Ministers but for independent police and prosecuting authorities.

Ian Murray: The Prime Minister said in this House on Tuesday that at the recent European Council meeting she encouraged  the EU to
“complete the single market and the digital single market.”—[Official Report, 14 March 2017; Vol. 623, c. 180.]
May we have a statement or a debate in this House on why it is in the UK’s national interest for the EU to complete those markets but it is not in the UK’s national interest to be part of them?

David Lidington: It is in the UK’s national interest that the European Union, with which we are negotiating a new partnership, has a system of economic co-operation that is as friendly to open markets and free trade as possible, because that will enhance the opportunities for our companies and citizens when it comes to that new relationship. I would have thought that was an objective that the hon. Gentleman would support.

Nick Smith: May we have a statement on car manufacturers who cheat on emissions tests? Volkswagen, and now it seems Renault, have serious questions to answer. If there is fraudulent behaviour, senior executives need to be held to account.

David Lidington: I have seen the reports of alleged malpractice by Renault. I would hope that any such allegations were properly investigated, and that those responsible for any wrongdoing were held properly to account.

Chris Matheson: Chester continues to be blighted by student housing developments built by speculative developers. Those developments are favoured because the distortion in the council tax rules mean that they get higher investment, and they take up  land that should be used for family accommodation. May I add my voice to that of the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) in calling for a debate on planning law, so that we can tackle these issues?

David Lidington: With the best will in the world, I suspect that we will never get a system of planning law that satisfies everybody in every sector of the economy, but I encourage the hon. Gentleman, as I encouraged my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), to seek an Adjournment debate or Back-Bench business debate on this matter.

Steven Paterson: Today is the 708th anniversary of Robert the Bruce calling his first Parliament in St Andrews. Of course, he spent a bit of time in my constituency, too. Can we have a debate on Scotland’s distinct parliamentary tradition, given that it is a story that is still being written?

David Lidington: That might be a suitable subject for a Scottish National party Supply day debate. Convinced Unionist though I am, I happy to salute Scotland’s parliamentary and constitutional tradition. I see the declaration of Arbroath and the Scottish parliamentary tradition as being among those constitutional and ultimately democratic traditions in our national life that have helped to enrich the United Kingdom as a whole.

Paula Sherriff: You may be aware, Mr Speaker, that I have campaigned on periods and have, within that, looked at period poverty. I recently spoke to BBC Radio Leeds, which highlighted that in that city, a significant number of girls are playing truant because they do not have any sanitary protection around the time of their period. One can only imagine the indignity that that causes. May we have a debate in Government time on whether there is anything that we can do to provide sanitary protection for low-income families and those who simply cannot afford it in these days of austerity?

David Lidington: This is probably a matter to be raised initially in an Adjournment debate, but of course one of the things that we will be able to deal with when we have left the European Union is the rates of value added tax that are obligatory under the fifth directive. The hon. Lady knows that the tax on sanitary products is one of the matters that the Government are committed to re-examining.

Gerald Jones: Recently, I asked the Prime Minister whether she would at the very least exempt older people from the local housing allowance cap that is being introduced for social housing tenants in 2019. Unfortunately, she did not seem to understand the question, so to assist her—and, more importantly, to avoid causing undue hardship to thousands of people across the country—may we have a debate on the implications of the proposals as soon as possible?

David Lidington: I am happy to refer the matter to the Department for Work and Pensions so that it can look at the problem, if the hon. Gentleman would like to let me have a few details, but I do think that the principle of a cap is right. Funds are available to councils for  discretionary use in cases of hardship, as he knows. If he thinks that there is a particular case for reform to the regulations, he can write to me and I will pass that to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

Lisa Cameron: May we have a statement on the lack of Changing Places toilets across the UK? It cannot be right that parents of disabled children are having to change their children on unhygienic toilet floors in this day and age. Surely this must be put on a statutory footing. Something must be done to bring us into the century that we should be in.

David Lidington: That is an interesting point. I absolutely understand the difficult position for parents who find themselves in such a situation. The hon. Lady might want to raise the matter in an Adjournment debate. I also suggest that she writes directly to the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work; I am sure that she will get a very reasonable hearing.

Madeleine Moon: I had a Westminster Hall debate yesterday, which a number families travelled from across the UK to attend. The debate was also attended by six MPs from majority parties throughout the House. We were debating police widows’ pensions, as the widows lose their pensions should they remarry or cohabit. It is basically a tax on love. Unfortunately, the Minister for Policing and the Fire Service only gave a seven-minute response—including taking an intervention—in the 15 minutes that he had in which to speak. Can we now have a debate here in the main Chamber so that a further and fuller answer is provided to those families, who feel they are facing a terrible injustice?

David Lidington: I am sure that the hon. Lady would acknowledge that the Minister, since he speaks last in such debates, only has such time as is available from the 90 minutes or 60 minutes that has been allotted for that particular debate. I am sure that she will be able to air her concerns further if she seeks the opportunity to raise this matter at Home Office questions, via the Backbench Business Committee or in an Adjournment debate.

Gavin Newlands: It is a pleasure to get back to my usual place in business questions—at the end. I am not sure whether the Leader of the House is aware of the Daughters of the Vote event that was held at the Canadian Parliament on International Women’s Day. Young women from each of Canada’s 338 constituencies or ridings sat in Parliament to gain experience and communicate their vision for Canada, hopefully inspiring them to participate in the political process for years to come. Can we have a debate in this place on how we can encourage more women into politics?

David Lidington: rose—

John Bercow: Before the Leader of the House replies, I say to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) that he can always tell himself and the people of his constituency that we keep the best till last.

David Lidington: The way in which some of today’s exchanges have highlighted the need to engage better with young people as an institution, and the way in which we have addressed, through these exchanges, the need to encourage greater opportunities for women, help to contribute to the hon. Gentleman’s objective. I hope that he would agree that it is not just about women. We also want to encourage young men, particularly those from working-class backgrounds, who often feel disaffected and alienated from mainstream democratic processes, and people from black and minority ethnic communities to be involved more. We can all do this through leadership in our constituencies and by using the services of the parliamentary education service, which really does provide first-class education materials and will happily host visits from schools and colleges here.

SKY/21ST CENTURY FOX: MERGER

Karen Bradley: I came to the House on 6 March  to give an update on the proposed merger between 21st Century Fox and Sky. At that time, I said that I was minded to issue a European intervention notice on the basis that I believed there to be public interest considerations, as set out in the Enterprise Act 2002, that may be relevant to this proposed merger and warrant further investigation.
The grounds on which I was minded to intervene were, as I explained at that time, media plurality and commitment to broadcasting standards, but I also confirmed that, in line with statutory guidance, I would be inviting further representations in writing from the parties. I gave them until last Wednesday to provide those representations.
Having carefully considered the representations from the parties and the other representations that I have received, I can now tell the House that I have today issued a European intervention notice on the grounds of media plurality and commitment to broadcasting standards. I have written to the parties, Ofcom, and the Competition and Markets Authority to inform them of my decision.
While the representations from 21st Century Fox highlighted areas in which it contested the position taken in my “minded to” letter, none of the representations have led me to dismiss the concerns I have regarding the two public interest grounds I previously specified. I am of the view that it remains both important, given the issues raised, and wholly appropriate for me to seek comprehensive advice from Ofcom on those public interest considerations, and from the CMA on jurisdiction issues. I note that, overall, the parties have welcomed a thorough regulatory review, and that is what will now happen as a result of the intervention notice I have issued.
Since my “minded to” decision, I have also received just over 700 representations from third parties, the vast majority of which supported intervention. A number of those representations called for me to create a new public interest consideration, which would require a fit and proper assessment of the parties to the merger to take place as part of the intervention process. They also argued that it should be made clearer that matters of corporate governance, accountability and conduct could be taken into account in assessing this merger. These issues relate to questions about the application of the fit and proper test by Ofcom, and I will come to those issues shortly.
As I have previously set out, the decision will now trigger action by Ofcom to assess and report to me on the public interest grounds I have specified, and by the CMA to report to me on jurisdiction. They each have 40 working days to prepare and provide these reports. This means that I will expect their reports by Tuesday 16 May. I will then resume my decision-making role in relation to the merger.
To be clear, this intervening period, and indeed any time after that until a final decision on the merger is taken, is subject to the constraints that apply to my quasi-judicial role. Mr Speaker, I am sure you understand  that I cannot—nor can any other member of the Government—comment substantively on the case as it proceeds. I will, however, as I have done so far, keep the House updated once I have considered the reports of Ofcom and the CMA.
What I will comment on is that much of the discussion in last week’s proceedings here and in the other place focused on Ofcom’s assessment of whether a licensee is fit and proper, including the ongoing duty that falls to Ofcom under the 1990 and 1996 Broadcasting Acts. I have received representations from the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) and the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), as well as from a number of other parties, on adding fit and proper as a new public interest consideration in the Enterprise Act 2002. I want to assure them that I have very carefully considered the arguments they have put forward.
The grounds set out in the Enterprise Act that allow for intervention in media mergers are aimed at ensuring plurality of the media, which is essential to a healthy democracy—something I know that Members of this House and the other place support. It is a view I fully and unequivocally endorse. However, I am also clear that the question of whether someone is fit and proper to hold a broadcasting licence is a different requirement, and one that, quite rightly, sits with Ofcom, the independent regulator.
On Monday, Ofcom announced that it would conduct its fit and proper assessment at the same time it considers any public interest test in response to my decision to intervene in the merger. This means that Ofcom will conduct its assessment within the 40 working days it has to report to me on the public interests I have specified in the intervention notice. I welcome Ofcom’s announcement, which will provide not only clarity for the parties, but reassurance to those who have expressed their own concerns, that this is a matter that Ofcom will now consider before the merger takes place.
I trust, as before, that this update is helpful to right hon. and hon. Members, and that it gives us an opportunity to debate this important issue, while at the same time respecting the limits of what I can say, as I referred to earlier, given my ongoing quasi-judicial role in relation to this merger. I commend the statement to the House.

Tom Watson: I thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of her statement. She says that she will go ahead with what she indicated she was going to do last week. That might not sound like a big deal, but it is more than the Chancellor and the Prime Minister managed yesterday.
Labour Members welcome the fact that the Secretary of State is intervening. She will have noticed that 21st Century Fox is happy, too. In a letter to her last week, it said:
“We welcome a thorough and thoughtful review”.
I have no doubt that that welcome is sincere, and that 21st Century Fox is thrilled by her decision. On that basis, I hope that it will seek not to challenge or impede any element of Ofcom’s investigation. If it does, I trust that she will make a new referral to put it beyond doubt that Ofcom can investigate what it needs to.
Can the Secretary of State confirm that the “broadcasting standards” ground of her referral gives Ofcom the power to investigate any corporate governance issues affecting 21st Century Fox, including the phone hacking scandal, any cover-up of illegality at News International, the rehiring of people responsible for governance failures, and ongoing sexual harassment claims in the United States? Is it her view that Ofcom should examine those issues?
The Secretary of State referred to representations made by me, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and others about adding “fit and proper” as a new public interest consideration, but she has regrettably chosen to reject them. I welcome Ofcom’s announcement that it will conduct a fit and proper assessment at the same time as considering the public interest test she has specified today, but I have two concerns about this. First, Ofcom has only 40 days to conduct the fit and proper assessment. Is the Secretary of State confident that it can get to the bottom of all these issues in such a short time? Secondly, the 2012 Ofcom report on James Murdoch, which found that his conduct
“repeatedly fell short of the conduct to be expected of him as a chief executive officer and chairman”,
contained this important caveat:
“The evidence available to date does not provide a reasonable basis to find that”
he
“knew of widespread wrongdoing or criminality at”
News of the World. The reason for that lack of evidence was that Ofcom did not have the power to gather the evidence it needed.
Just a few years ago, News Corporation, 21st Century Fox’s predecessor company, was involved in one of the biggest corporate scandals and one of the biggest corporate governance failures of modern times. Many of the questions about the failure of corporate governance failure within 21st Century Fox’s predecessor company, and much of the evidence of the role of James Murdoch within those failures, can be answered only by going ahead with part 2 of the Leveson inquiry. Ofcom does not have the power to obtain documents and compel witnesses to appear before it. Is not the easiest way of getting to the bottom of the corporate governance questions that we all want answered to hold an inquiry in public, using powers under the Inquiries Act 2005, with terms of reference that have already been announced by a Conservative Prime Minister as a promise to the victims of phone hacking—namely Leveson part 2?

Karen Bradley: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I will address his final point first—the issue of Leveson—as I did last time I was at the Dispatch Box on this matter. As he will know, the consultation we launched, which closed in January, is subject to judicial review. I am therefore unable to comment on the consultation, or any aspects of it, with regard to the Leveson inquiry. I hope he will understand that I cannot make further comment about that.
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the decision to refer this merger, but it is important that I make a couple of points in relation to his questions. He asked whether the “broadcasting standards” element could include looking at corporate governance. I was  clear in my original “minded to” letter and in the statement I made to the House on 6 March that corporate governance was one of the issues on which I was referring the matter to Ofcom, and therefore I would expect it to look at that. Clearly, however, Ofcom is an independent regulator. I have made the decision to refer to Ofcom, but it is for Ofcom to decide what evidence it wants to look at. It is open to look at whatever evidence it feels is appropriate to enable it to make its decision.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the fit and proper test. I very carefully considered the representations that were made, but it is important that it is the independent regulator that looks at fit and proper and the Government who have grounds on which to intervene under the Enterprise Act. Those two things have to be kept separate. The Government should not step into the area where, quite rightly, the regulator should sit.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether Ofcom has the time, resources and ability to gather the evidence that it needs. I have been assured by Ofcom that it has the time to do this and the ability to gather the evidence it needs, and I now look forward to letting it get on with the job.

John Whittingdale: Although it is clearly sensible to ask the regulator to examine this bid, does my right hon. Friend recognise that this transaction represents a £11.7 billion investment by an international company in a British broadcaster and is, as such, a fantastic vote of confidence in the UK’s remaining an international centre of broadcasting long after we leave the European Union?

Karen Bradley: As the House knows, my right hon. Friend has significant experience in matters of culture, media and sport. He is right to say that the UK is global Britain, open for business to the whole world, and that it will remain so after we have left the European Union.

John Nicolson: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. I am pleased that she will intervene in the proposed merger of Sky and Fox, and that she will ask Ofcom to investigate the deal. Scottish National party Members have consistently voiced our support for media plurality and our commitment to broadcasting standards. There are valid concerns about the merger, which will increase the influence of Rupert Murdoch and his family in the UK’s media. There are concerns regarding a number of breaches of broadcasting standards by Fox, as well as News Corporation’s past behaviour and corporate governance failures.
Many people highlight the fact that part 2 of the Leveson inquiry has yet to be commenced, and they question whether such a significant deal can go ahead before that happens. This is not the first time that there has been an attempt to take over Sky, and we should be mindful of why the previous bid courted such controversy and failed.
At the same time, it should be acknowledged that television is adapting to changes in viewing habits and competition throughout the world. Some will argue that investment in Sky might allow the UK to thrive in the international arena and continue to compete with competitors such as Netflix and Amazon Prime. We  welcome the fact that Ofcom will report on the public interest grounds of media plurality and commitment to broadcasting standards, as well as conducting a fit and proper assessment. I trust and believe that that will provide the Secretary of State with the necessary recommendations on how to proceed, and I look forward to Ofcom’s conclusions.

Karen Bradley: I refer to my earlier comments regarding the Leveson inquiry—I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand. I thank him for his welcome for the decision. I look forward, as he does, to seeing the reports from Ofcom and the Competition and Markets Authority, which will enable me to use my quasi-judicial role to make a fair and transparent decision.

Nigel Evans: It appears that even the mention of the name Murdoch gets some people twitching and frothing at the mouth. Does the Secretary of State recognise the fact that while James Murdoch was chief executive and later chairman of Sky, the company grew to employ 24,000 people in this country, with investments of £700 million a year in original production and programming? Does she believe, as I do, that Sky is an important part of the creativity of this country, and that the proposal of this merger shows the confidence of the rest of the world in Britain’s productivity and future?

Karen Bradley: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I agree that media plurality is important, which is why I have asked Ofcom to look at the proposed merger and to make a decision, on the grounds set out in the Enterprise Act 2002, about whether it will affect media plurality. Like him, I am optimistic that, following Brexit, the UK broadcasting industry will continue to thrive and to be the world-leading industry that it is today.

Ed Miliband: I welcome the Secretary of State’s decision to refer this bid. Many of us believe that in view of the conduct of the Murdochs and the untrammelled power that they already have, it is not in the public interest for them to take over Sky and have full control.
I want to ask about the question of fitness, which I know the Secretary of State has thought about a lot. The 2011 Ofcom review took 15 months to look at the fitness of the Murdochs, but she expects Ofcom to report back to her within 40 days. There is a question about timescale and powers, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) has said. Can she assure us that if during this period Ofcom seeks more time, or indeed more powers, to carry out the fitness review, she will grant its request?

Karen Bradley: Ofcom has assured me that it has the time and the powers that it needs, and I look forward to seeing its report in due course.

Edward Leigh: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the freedom of the press, and indeed of press ownership, is a bastion of our liberties? It is for Ofcom—objectively, not subjectively—to define, as a narrow term of art, a fit and proper person; it is not for Ministers and politicians to get involved  in this.

Karen Bradley: My hon. Friend’s point is exactly what I concluded, having considered the representations. There needs to be a distinction between the work of the independent regulator in determining who is a fit and proper person to hold a broadcasting licence versus the role of the Secretary of State when it comes to determining whether a media merger can go ahead under the terms of the Enterprise Act.

Alistair Carmichael: Having encouraged the Secretary of State to take this course of action, may I now welcome the fact that she has done so? She deserves credit for doing the right thing, and I have no doubt that she will have the support of the House as this matter goes forward. Many years ago, I served on the Standing Committee that considered the Enterprise Bill, and I recall that the provisions on this process were supported by all parties at that time. It strikes me, however, that in the light of this experience, it might be appropriate at its conclusion to revisit whether we do in fact have the processes we really need to ensure that we get the ends that we want to achieve.

Karen Bradley: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for welcoming this. If he wants to make representations to me regarding the Enterprise Act and areas in which he feels changes could be made in the light of changing broadcasting and consuming habits, I will of course look at them carefully.

Nigel Huddleston: I agree with the Secretary of State’s view that the decision on whether somebody is a fit and proper person should quite correctly be for an independent regulator, not a politician. Does she believe that that is consistent with our goals of not politicising our broadcasting landscape?

Karen Bradley: I agree with my hon. Friend. That was exactly the conclusion I reached when looking at the representations that I received.

David Winnick: I recognise and respect what the Secretary of State has told the House, and we all appreciate her keeping the House up to date. I again say that this is not a question of any kind of vendetta against Mr Murdoch, but it would be simply unacceptable for the amount of media ownership he already controls to be increased. That is the position, and it is why I hope that the right decision will be taken at the end of the day.

Karen Bradley: Ofcom will look at these matters and I look forward to seeing its report.

Jeremy Lefroy: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, but will she assure me that the question of plurality is not just examined occasionally—when a big merger such as this comes up—but kept constantly under review by Ofcom and, indeed, her Department?

Karen Bradley: Ofcom has a responsibility to consider on a regular basis the fit and proper person test for holding a broadcasting licence. Clearly, however, when looking at the whole media landscape—there were questions about the status of Channel 4 during oral questions—the  issue of media plurality is at the forefront of my mind. That is the case when looking at the right decision to take regarding the future of Channel 4 and all media matters.

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her statement. I have received a huge number of emails on this issue from many constituents, and I welcome the intervention that she detailed in her statement. A free, open and diverse press is of course important to democracy, and I want to put on record that my constituents have asked that she understands the depth and strength of feeling on this issue. I look forward to hearing from her further in due course.

Karen Bradley: The hon. Lady will probably not be surprised to hear that I have, I suspect, received more emails than even she has on this matter. I have taken note of them.

Bob Blackman: I think my right hon. Friend’s decision will be warmly welcomed by all parties to the proposed merger, as well as across the country. However, one of the considerations is the short time in which Ofcom must carry out the review. Will she therefore ask Ofcom for an interim report part of the way through this period? If there is any obstruction or a need to extend the time, she would then be able to look at the situation sympathetically to ensure that Ofcom can do the proper job we all want it to do.

Karen Bradley: My hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion, but Ofcom has reassured me that it has the time and resources required to produce a report in 40 working days. It is important to remember that we want to make sure that there is sufficient time and scrutiny, and that we provide certainty within a reasonable timeframe, so that all parties can get on with business as usual, whatever that might be.

Chris Bryant: I warmly congratulate the Secretary of State on her decision. She should bear in mind, however, that historically successive Governments —and Prime Ministers, in particular since Mrs Thatcher—have decided that Rupert and now James Murdoch are fit and proper persons because they own newspapers that support them in general elections. The concentration of ownership is the problem. Sky now has nearly four times as much money to spend every year as the BBC. I hope that we end up in a position in which we maintain diversity in the British ecology, with a strong BBC not being bullied by Murdoch and Sky.

Karen Bradley: I am getting slightly worried, because this is the second time this morning the hon. Gentleman has worked consensually with the Government, but I take note of his comments.

Margaret Ferrier: I welcome today’s statement, as will many of my constituents who have been in contact with me regarding this matter. I am sure that they will all be happy that the bid is being referred to the regulators. Given that Britain has one of the most concentrated media environments in the world, with three companies controlling 71% of national newspaper circulation and five companies in  command of 81% of local newspapers titles, does the Secretary of State agree that now is the ideal time to properly review the media landscape in Britain?

Karen Bradley: I am very proud of the incredibly diverse free press that we have in this country, and I want to preserve it and ensure that we can enable it to thrive. There was a question in oral questions about local newspapers, and I certainly want local newspapers, and others, to thrive. Through this process, it is important that we ensure that we have a plurality of media and broadcasting. That is why I have asked Ofcom to look at this particular issue.

Clive Efford: I welcome the Secretary of State’s decision. I would merely point out that someone has to be a fit and proper person to be a licensed London hackney carriage driver. With that in mind, this is not just a question of the amount of influence that the Murdochs already have; it is their association with so much corruption and illegality, which is still being uncovered even now. I am incredulous that they are being considered for a 100% controlling share of Sky. That must not be allowed to happen.

Karen Bradley: I am sure that Ofcom will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s comments. I hope that his comments about fit and proper persons for taxi driving is not a reflection on any experiences he may have had in the past.

Helen Goodman: I congratulate the Secretary of State on how she is handling this matter which, if I may say so, is better than any Secretary of State since 2010. She says that she cannot respond to any substantive questions on Leveson 2 because it is under judicial review. When will the judicial review be resolved so that we might come back to Leveson 2?

Karen Bradley: The judicial review is a matter for the courts. I am in their hands.

Points of Order

Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

John Bercow: Yes, I will take a point of order now. There are a couple of Select Committee statements coming, but we can await those with eager anticipation and bated breath. I am sure colleagues do so, but let us first hear the point of order from Mr Christopher Chope.

Christopher Chope: In a section headed “Making Commitments on the Floor of the House”, paragraph 23.42 of the Cabinet Office guide to making legislation, published in July 2015, states:
“Parliament will hold Ministers to any commitments they make on the floor of the House which are recorded in Hansard. Ministers must, therefore, take care during debates not to make any commitments for which they do not have collective agreement”.
My point of order, Mr Speaker, is how can Parliament hold Ministers to those commitments that have been made on the Floor of the House?
Briefly, the background is this. In recent days, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), have told me, the leader of Christchurch borough council and the mayor of Christchurch that they do not regard themselves as bound by the commitment made by the Government to the House on 7 December 2015. On that day, I asked the then Secretary of State:
“Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that amendment 56 will not be used by the Government to force change on any local authority?”
The Secretary of State replied:
“I will indeed.”—[Official Report, 7 December 2015; Vol. 603, c. 822.]
That is pretty clear, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) received a similar commitment. How can we hold the Government to account for the commitments that have been made?

Edward Leigh: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

John Bercow: As his point of order is on the same matter, and it is a case of Tweedledum and Tweedledee, I think that I will hear from the hon. Gentleman.

Edward Leigh: I am a bit insulted to find that I am Tweedledee in your estimation, Mr Speaker.
This is a very serious topic. I have here a copy of the 7 December edition of Hansard. I, too, intervened on the then Secretary of State in column 822. Having raised issues concerning Lincolnshire and the desire of the county council and the Government to have a mayor and a unitary authority, I received a specific commitment from the Secretary of State that he would not use amendment 56 to force a unitary authority on Lincolnshire. I received that commitment in terms. All that the Secretary of State said to me was that he would force discussions—that is, he would not prevent discussions  from taking place—but the commitment was absolutely clear. I hope that you, Mr Speaker, will protect the right of the House of Commons to hold Ministers to account.

John Bercow: I am very grateful to the hon. Members for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) for raising this important matter.
The Chair has no responsibility for the contents of a document or manual issued by the Cabinet Office. That is its interpretation of the responsibility and advised course of action of Ministers. However, the short answer to the hon. Member for Christchurch, who asked me how Ministers are to be held to commitments that they have made: is by interrogation, by scrutiny, and, potentially, if Members judge it fit and appropriate, by criticism, and hence by potential parliamentary or public obloquy in the event of the breach of a commitment made. That is the answer. There is no binding obligation on any Member to do exactly what he or she has said that he or she will do in addressing the House, just as there is no obligation on any Back Bencher.
That said, making a commitment from the Dispatch Box in response to a question or an intervention is a very serious and solemn matter. It is not something that should be treated lightly or cast aside. Nor is it in any sense acceptable for it to be argued—if it were argued—that there has since been a change in the ministerial team; government is, of course, seamless, and responsibility is collective. That is the situation.
I cannot possibly become involved in exchanges or debate about the future make-up of local government in Dorset. I have enough to contend with in trying to make arguments in relation to the structure of local government in my own county of Buckinghamshire in conversations with Ministers. What I will say, however, and it will doubtless be heard by Ministers, is that I know the hon. Member for Christchurch extremely well. I have known him since 1986, and I have known the hon. Member for Gainsborough since 1997. They are both extremely diligent and serious-minded Members of Parliament. If a Minister thinks that a commitment made can subsequently and lightly be abrogated without parliamentary consequence from Members of their calibre, I think that that Minister is, dare I say it, really rather misguided, as such Minister will probably soon discover. The mechanisms available include debates, and that includes Adjournment debates. So these matters will not go away. It is also open to Members to question Ministers, including very, very senior Ministers, about obligations that have been entered into on behalf of the Government.

Chris Bryant: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will know that in the past the Leader of the House would announce not only next week’s business, but the business for the week after on a provisional basis. I have noticed that for the last few weeks the Leader of the House has been announcing only next week plus one day, normally the Monday. That is proving difficult for Select Committees and other Committees, which have to arrange their business; for ordinary Members, who would like to be able to organise their diaries better, and for those who have commitments in their constituency.
Delightfully, the Leader of the House has just come back into the Chamber, but the Deputy Leader of the House has been present, and he is a very admirable man  whom we do not hear enough from in the House. Mr Speaker, will you speak to the Leader of the House, to try and encourage him to give us two weeks of parliamentary business, rather than just one at a time?

John Bercow: I say two things to the hon. Gentleman. First, the practice of announcing only the first day of the provisional business for the second week is not unknown; there are many precedents for it, although I certainly accept that the norm is that the House receives two weeks of business, so the hon. Gentleman is broadly correct in what he says.
The second observation I would make is that the Leader of the House has toppled into the Chamber at a most fortuitous time. Whether he has done so because he was excited by the hon. Gentleman’s point of order or because he wants to listen to the Select Committee statements, I do not know. The Leader of the House is perfectly welcome to spring to his feet and come to the Dispatch Box and respond to the hon. Gentleman, as is the Deputy Leader of the House, but notwithstanding the extraordinary temptation to do so, both of them may feel inclined on this occasion to resist—and it appears that they do. But the hon. Gentleman has made his point, and, for what it is worth, I think that if it is possible, it should be done, but it is not always practicable. I hope my response has been helpful.

Patricia Gibson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance. On 23 October last year, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport issued a press release indicating that from spring 2017 film directors would face fines of up to £500,000 from the Information Commissioner’s office if found to be in breach of the privacy and electronic communications regulations. Incidentally, this information is still published on the gov.uk website and is exactly what I have called for in my ten-minute rule Bill.
In response to a letter I wrote to the Secretary of State on 17 January 2017 asking for confirmation of the timing of this legislation, I was told on 8 February:
“The Government intends to publish its consultation on this measure shortly.”
I was so surprised by the mention of a consultation—something that had hitherto not been mentioned either by the Government or in the press release, or, indeed, on their website—that I submitted a written question on 21 February trying to establish if the spring 2017 deadline could still be met. In the response to that, received on 2 March, I was told that a consultation would be issued
“during this session of Parliament”.
On 2 March I sought further clarification via another written question and was told on 10 March that the intention was to issue a consultation “in due course.”
This is a matter of great import to a huge number of people, and we have arguably already entered spring and the consultation has not begun, and was not even initially mentioned by the Government. Therefore, I am at a loss to understand how the Government can possibly meet their own deadline on this issue. Can you offer me guidance, Mr Speaker, as to how I can establish what the Government Department is doing to ensure it meets its own timetable and how I can best elicit that information, given that letters to the Secretary of State and written questions appear not to be effective in achieving that?

John Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order, of which she gave me advance notice.
It is very difficult for the Chair to assist the hon. Lady. First, I would say that Governments of both hues in this country have not always been overly preoccupied with meeting their own deadlines. It has not always been regarded as an overriding priority by them, although it is often the case that people who have depended upon their words would prefer a greater fidelity to the commitment that has been made.
Secondly, as the hon. Lady will know, there is often something of a debate about what falls within the seasons of the year. It is not uncommon for Ministers in a Government to refer to an intention to do something “in the spring”, for instance, and for them sometimes to have a slightly different interpretation of the period covered by a season of the year from that which hon. Members or members of the public might have.
Thirdly, I have been advised by the Clerk, who has helpfully volunteered some text to me, that it is not unprecedented for Government Departments to be unspecific about when they are going to do something. However, I am sure that the hon. Lady will use her ingenuity to pursue the matter further. My advice to her is almost, if you will, geographical advice. It is that she should wend her way to the Table Office to see what sort of questions she can table that might provide satisfaction. I do not wish to be unkind to her, as she is an extremely diligent Member, but my broad advice to her—not merely as Speaker but as someone who was for 12 years a parliamentarian mainly sitting on the Back Benches—is that she should make as much of a nuisance of herself as she possibly can. That might avail her. She needs to persist to such a degree that Ministers feel that it is better to provide satisfaction to her.

Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have been informed by sources in the media that the Prime Minister is going to make a significant statement on the Scottish constitution this  afternoon. Have you had any notification of a prime ministerial statement? Most of us were here at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, when she was asked many questions about the Scottish constitution and gave incredibly inadequate answers. It would be surprising, would it not, if there had subsequently been a development in her thinking and that she would want to put out a statement without the effective parliamentary scrutiny that such an important announcement—as it is being advertised—would demand. The Leader of the House is in his place. I know that he cannot be held responsible for every sin of this Government—that would be too much for any human being—but perhaps he can tell us if it is indeed the case that the Prime Minister intends to make such a statement and, if so, why she is not coming to the Dispatch Box for effective questioning by Members of Parliament.

John Bercow: It has to be said that, not for the first time, I have learned of something from the right hon. Gentleman. I was not aware—because nobody had told me—of any possible public statement of the kind that he envisages. Secondly, it is not always completely to be assumed that what is bruited in the media is correct. There may be no plan for any such statement today. It could even conceivably be a quiet news day, leading some people in the media to speculate that there will be such a statement, or that they would like such a statement to be made, or that there ought to be one. I am not aware that there is intended to be any such statement. The Prime Minister has, over many years, including during her tenure as Home Secretary, been fastidious in coming to the House to make statements on important policy developments. I am not aware of any plan for her to do so today, but if she were minded to make a public statement of the kind that the right hon. Gentleman envisages, and wanted to come to the House to do so, it would be open to her to do that. Whatever other plans I might have for the day, I would happily reschedule them in order to be in my place to hear the Prime Minister. Perhaps we can leave that there for now.

CHILCOT INQUIRY

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

John Bercow: We now come to the first Select Committee statement. I cannot resist observing that this is the latest of the statements to the House from the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), and that, as a Select Committee Chair, no one has taken more seriously his responsibilities in these matters or more enthusiastically availed himself of the opportunity to make such statements to the House. Perhaps other Select Committee Chairs will copy the hon. Gentleman in due course; it remains to be seen. The hon. Gentleman will speak on his subject for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I—or whoever is in the Chair—will call Members to put questions on the subject of the statement and ask the hon. Gentleman to respond to them in turn. Members can expect to be called only once. Interventions should be questions and should be brief. The Front Bench may take part in questioning.  I call the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee of the House, Mr Bernard Jenkin.

Bernard Jenkin: (Select Committee Statement): I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for providing time for me to present our 10th report of this Session, entitled “Lessons still to be learned from the Chilcot Inquiry”. The decision to invade Iraq has left an indelible scar on British politics. It continues to be as controversial today as it was at the time, not least because it became apparent after the invasion that it was to become a protracted and bloody affair, costing the lives of 179 UK servicemen and women, as well as those of our allies and of thousands of people in Iraq. The consequences of the decision to invade Iraq remain profound, not only for domestic politics but for our foreign and security policy and the stability of the region.
The Chilcot inquiry was established in 2009 to provide some closure to the controversy. However, in the minds of many, it was already far too late. I am reminded that the House of Commons first voted on the question of whether to have an inquiry in 2002, on a Conservative Opposition motion. For many, the length of the inquiry that was eventually established has itself has been subject to extensive criticism. Most of the reporting and discussion of the Chilcot inquiry has been preoccupied with the substance of the decision to go to war, its legality, and what happened in the aftermath of the invasion. Yet there are also lessons still to be learned regarding the machinery of government and how it operated and regarding the conduct of public inquiries, and that is what Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee therefore agreed to focus on.
PACAC’s report, launched today, examines the striking extent to which Cabinet government and collective decision making were sidelined by the then Prime Minister in the run-up to the Iraq war. As was made clear in the Chilcot report, significant decisions on Iraq, pre-conflict, were taken without sufficient consultation of Cabinet colleagues. Chilcot concludes that there were 11 decision points prior to the invasion on which there
“should have been collective discussion by a Cabinet Committee or small group of Ministers on the basis of inter-departmental advice agreed at a senior level between officials”.
A worrying finding of PACAC’s report is that, if so inclined, a future Prime Minister could override the proper procedures of collective decision making without obstacle. Beyond making representations to Ministers and to the Prime Minister, and short of resignation, a Cabinet Secretary does not have any formal recourse to object if a Prime Minister chooses to disregard the procedures for decision making set out in the Cabinet manual. PACAC is in no doubt that this absence of safeguards cannot persist, and this leads to perhaps the most important conclusion in our report.
We recommend, in line with a proposal from the Better Government initiative, that the Cabinet Secretary and/or senior officials should be able to require a formal letter of direction if they are being instructed to carry out the wishes of the Prime Minister disregarding the normal procedures set out in the Cabinet manual. That would both safeguard the Cabinet Secretary’s independence and clarify their responsibility. It would also make clear to Ministers the vital importance of following proper procedure.
The second key finding of PACAC’s report relates to the establishment, role and conduct of the Chilcot inquiry itself and builds on the work of PACAC’s predecessor committee, the Public Administration Committee, which carried out a number of inquiries into the conduct and effectiveness of public inquiries. PACAC recommends that in future, before an inquiry is established, Parliament should set up an ad hoc Select Committee to take evidence on the proposed remit of the inquiry and to present formal conclusions and recommendations to the House. There should then be a full debate and vote in Parliament on an amendable motion setting out the precise terms of reference and an estimated timeframe and proposed budget for the inquiry. That should ensure that, in future, expectations are much clearer at the outset of an inquiry.
PACAC has not sought to reopen all the issues explored by Chilcot; nor has it explored whether Parliament was deliberately misled by the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Tony Blair. However, by highlighting what the Chilcot inquiry revealed about the weaknesses in the Government’s decision-making procedures, and by exploring what lessons can be learned from the inquiry for the conduct of other public inquiries, I hope that we can ensure that the processes are in place that may enable such controversies to be avoided in future. I commend the report to the House.

Jon Trickett: I will follow the strictures to be brief.
On Iraq, the British Cabinet, the overwhelming majority in the House, much of the media, the three Select Committees, the civil service, the MOD, and the security services all came to the same false conclusion, resulting in a disastrous military adventure and deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Subsequently, the usual and predictable procrastination, prevarication and obfuscation have, in the end, failed to reveal to the British people the truth of what happened.
The Select Committee’s report is clear that the Chilcot report failed to allow the Committee to answer the central question of whether Parliament was deliberately  misled, leaving a gaping chasm right in the heart of the credibility of the British establishment. What a damning judgment after all these years.
I welcome the various recommendations in today’s report, particularly on strengthening the independence of the Cabinet Secretary and the role of the Commons, but the recommendations are, frankly, timid. Does the Chair, and perhaps his Select Committee, agree that root and branch transformative change of all our political structures and culture is required before we can honestly say to the British people that there will never again be such a failure?

Bernard Jenkin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. I voted for the Iraq invasion. I still do not know whether I would have voted the same way had we known much more about it. The salient part is the lack of preparation, and I would not have voted for it had I thought that there had been so little preparation. Having said that, I think the jury is still out on whether, in the long term, the invasion of Iraq will have been of benefit to global peace and security.
On whether Parliament was deliberately misled, the Select Committee just did not feel qualified to make that judgment. We do not have the procedures and wherewithal in this House to conduct a fair trial of the facts. Were such a Committee to be established to do that, it would need to be a very different kind of Committee with a different kind of quasi-judicial procedures. We suggest that the House should be prepared to do that if further facts and information emerge, but Sir John Chilcot was clear that he did not hold former Prime Minister Tony Blair culpable in deliberately misleading the House, and we have to accept that view.
Finally, on whether our recommendations are  timid, they are limited to what we felt able to make recommendations about. However we organise our politics, I am afraid that there will always be occasions when things go wrong. I do not think that any constitutional structure can protect us from that, although we have made some recommendations that would prevent certain things from happening again.

Cheryl Gillan: Being a member of the Select Committee, I come at this from a position similar to that of my hon. Friend who chairs it with such distinction, which is reflected in the calibre of the report. I have my doubts about whether my vote would have been different had we had more facts, but we take our votes in this House on the facts that are presented to us and then we move forward; we do not get our time over again to relive our votes.
One concern that we were able to cover in the report was the length of time and the unacceptable delays associated with the Chilcot report. The Cabinet Secretary indicated that the Government would consider further the question of how the Iraq inquiry could have been carried out more quickly. We urge that that assessment comes as a matter of urgency, so has my hon. Friend received any indication of the timescale, or will we be waiting a long time, as we did for the inquiry itself?

Several hon. Members: rose—

Natascha Engel: Order. On the matter of timescales, we have until about 12.35 pm, which leaves about 10 minutes to get quite a few people in. If we can keep answers and questions a bit briefer, that would be great.

Bernard Jenkin: I will endeavour to be extremely brief. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her question, her participation in the Select Committee and her contribution to the report. The answer is that we are making recommendations about the conduct of inquiries, and I doubt whether the Government will like them because they would limit their control over the process. Most Governments establish public inquiries to avoid issues, not to explore them and open them up. Why did it take so long to get this inquiry? Our report is as much addressed to what the House must take control of itself in order to ensure that inquiries are better conducted in future.

Alex Salmond: I congratulate the Select Committee, although I am surprised to hear the Chairman say that the jury is still out on the Iraq war. In terms of public opinion, the jury is in, the verdict has been delivered, and the former Prime Minister has been indicted and rightfully so, although I would have preferred more formal proceedings to those which he faced.
The crucial subject matter in the report boils down to two things. First, I congratulate the Committee on the invention of the letter of direction, which is similar to the financial direction that is part of Government accountability. Perhaps the Chairman could say a bit more about that and about why he thinks it would be effective in avoiding the total and absolute breakdown of collective responsibility that was identified in the Chilcot report.
Secondly, the Committee has not been able to make as much progress on the question of parliamentary accountability. If someone, such as the former Prime Minister, says one thing to the American President, and then says something else or does not say anything to the House of Commons, that is prima facie a misleading of the House of Commons. To avoid that accountability, either one sets up a series of inquiries with limited remits that are unable to adjudicate on that which was done, or one spins things out for so long that by the time there is an inquiry with a big enough remit everybody says, “Why are we raking over the past?” If we allow that to stand, there is no effective parliamentary accountability. Can the Chairman see that the timeous nature of parliamentary accountability and our responsibility can be effected in his report and a mechanism produced so that we have the obligation to take forward what our constituents demand, which is to hold any Prime Minister who behaves in the same way as the former Prime Minister to account in a proper and timeous fashion?

Bernard Jenkin: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. The letter of direction should not be a controversial matter, because we already have it in our procedures for financial matters, as he says. One or two former Cabinet Secretaries have bridled at that, but others are very much in support. It does not interfere with the substance of policy; it merely ensures that proper process is covered. We recommend not that the letter of the direction,  which may come at a sensitive time or involve a sensitive issue, should automatically be made public, but that it should, if appropriate and at the behest of the Cabinet Secretary, be made privately available to an appropriate Select Committee, to the Intelligence and Security Committee, to members of the Privy Council or to the Leader of the Opposition. It is just another lever for a Cabinet Secretary to use to secure their independence and the proper process set down in the Cabinet manual that Prime Ministers have agreed to in principle.
On parliamentary accountability and the Prime Minister, it remains open to this House to set up a special Select Committee or privileges Committee to establish proper procedures and provide fair representation for the prosecution and for the defence, but it would be a completely new procedure. Nothing like that has been done in the era when we expect natural justice to be carried to far higher standards. We cannot have a posse of MPs, all of whom have known views on such issues, acting as some kangaroo court to arraign a former Prime Minister. That would be ridiculous and would not do this House any good.

John Whittingdale: On the establishment of inquiries, my hon. Friend will be aware that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is considering whether to reconvene the Leveson inquiry, which has already sat for 15 months, at a cost of more than £5 million, to examine events approaching 10 years ago. What advice would he give to the Secretary of State?

Bernard Jenkin: As perhaps should have been done with the child sex abuse inquiry, I suggest that the Secretary of State comes to this House to ask for a Committee to be set up. Let us have an inquiry into the inquiry before we get stuck on the tramlines of legality and appointing people. She should look before she leaps and accept that Governments should not be able to establish inquiries to get themselves out of inconvenient difficulties. The House is here to assist such scrutiny, and it should be here to provide oversight so that an inquiry is properly conducted in a timely fashion.

Kelvin Hopkins: I am a member of the Select Committee. I supported the publication of the report, but in the spirit of acquiescence rather than enthusiasm. The Chairman will recall that I was uneasy about one or two phrases that were subsequently corrected. In particular, does he agree with our inserting the possibility of a further inquiry—not by our Select Committee but possibly by others—if further evidence comes to light?
I personally believe that we were misled by the then Prime Minister on weapons of mass destruction and the pretext for war. I was one of 139 Labour MPs who voted against the war, and I stand by that decision. Some of the unease I feel was expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett). Does the Chairman accept that I expressed some unease at the time? I support the publication of the report, particularly the recommendation that it might be worthwhile for a future inquiry to be carried out, not by our Select Committee but by others.

Bernard Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman has been a trouper on the Committee for many years. I accept that this was a difficult inquiry to agree. In our draft, because we  were concentrating on process and procedures rather than on the substance of the issues, we had to reflect some of the tone of the anxiety that so many people  feel about this issue. I hope he felt able and comfortable to support the inquiry. He fully supports our recommendations, for which I am grateful.

David Nuttall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the overriding lesson that most people will think we can learn from Chilcot is that such reports take too long and cost too much?

Bernard Jenkin: The inquiry is an extraordinarily thorough piece of work. Sir John Chilcot should be commended for what he achieved, the detail he went into and the seriousness with which he approached the inquiry, but it was not what the public initially expected. The Crimean war was in many respects a far bigger disaster, but the inquiry into that was conducted in the space of a few months, which I think is what the public hoped for with Chilcot—there were some fairly obvious top-level things.
We conduct inquiries using Salmon letters—the Maxwellisation process—and there is a tremendous sense of obligation to provide people with fairness in inquiries that perhaps did not exist after the Crimean war. We need to set down parameters for such inquiries, which is what a Select Committee would do if it studied an inquiry before it was set up. A Select Committee would set those parameters in a motion establishing the inquiry.

Ann Clwyd: I found out that the statement was taking place only by accident. I have not read the report, but I listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman’s statement. Nobody would disagree with due process. I sent out this Twitter message two hours ago:
“My thoughts are with the victims and survivors of Saddam Hussein’s genocidal campaign in Halabja, 28 years ago today.”
That campaign is one of the reasons why I and many others, the majority in this House, voted for the war.

Bernard Jenkin: I am grateful for the right hon. Lady’s kind remarks, and it is important that we make such Select Committee statements because they engage more Members in our reports. I regard our report as a serious piece of work that makes serious recommendations, and hon. and right hon. Members of all views on the original conflict can embrace it as a better way of making such decisions in government and a better way of conducting public inquiries.

Ronnie Cowan: As a member of the Select Committee, I point out that the Chilcot inquiry was about identifying mistakes that led to loss of life, military and civilian. With that in mind, it is unacceptable that the inquiry took seven years to reach a conclusion. Those mistakes could have been repeated in that timescale. However, the Committee points out:
“The Iraq Inquiry reported that the Blair Government did not expose key policy decisions to rigorous review.”
Backing that up, paragraph 63 says:
“Cabinet was…being asked to confirm the decision that the diplomatic process was at an end and that the House of Commons should be asked to endorse the use of military action to enforce Iraq’s compliance. Given the gravity of this decision, Cabinet should have been made aware of the legal uncertainties.”
I put it to the Chairman that the evidence provided to the Cabinet appears to have been designed to produce the result that the then Prime Minister was looking for.

Bernard Jenkin: I think that is an accurate comment, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his contribution to the Committee and this report. It cuts both ways, because the Cabinet went along with being sidelined. Chilcot was clear that plenty of Cabinet Ministers were quite content to leave it to others to make the decisions when they had the right to insist on being consulted. Our report addresses how the legal advice was taken, explored and discussed by the Cabinet, and we make recommendations about that. Our proposals make clear what Cabinet Ministers are entitled to expect. It is not a favour to ask that of the Prime Minister; it is part of the proper procedure of Cabinet government. We do not have a superannuated presidency in this country. We have a constitutional Cabinet Government, which should be reinforced by these proposals.

Paul Flynn: I am also a member of the Committee, but I do not support this report because I believe it has been interpreted by the press as an act of absolution for the Prime Minister involved and the other culpable people who were led by him, principally the three Select Committees of this House. Going to war was the worst blunder this House committed since sending troops to the Suez war. We should be objective in dealing with our blunders and, although this report has many merits, it does not address the truth that we were led into an avoidable war by a man of vanity who was in a messianic mood—he misled the House in a very serious way.
The hon. Gentleman’s report contains evidence from Dr Rangwala, who rightly says that there are two interpretations of the evidence before Chilcot. One interpretation, which the report suggests should be referred to the Privileges Committee, might lead us to conclude that we went to war in vain. We must remember the principal need to avoid sending soldiers to war in future because of the vanity or inflexibility of this House in making fair judgments. We have that responsibility. If we do not condemn the errors of the past, we are responsible for them.

Bernard Jenkin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his work on the Committee, and I respect that we differ on the report. I appreciate the emphasis he wants to   make by declining to support the report, but it is open to the House at any time to refer any matter to the Committee of Privileges. There is a procedure for doing that, and he should try to implement it if he thinks there is a case for doing so.
The difficulty, as the Chilcot inquiry said, is that there are two interpretations of all this and that there is no definitive evidence to suggest culpability or that the former Prime Minister deliberately sought to mislead the House. There are lots of lessons to be learned. As an aside, for the House to be able to make an informed decision, it relies entirely on what the Government tell it. We are in a new era in which the House is consulted about such things, which never used to be the case. We used to have rather more retrospective accountability on such matters, rather than forward accountability, and I question whether such forward accountability works. I do not think the House of Commons is competent to make strategic judgments on the spur of the moment and in the heat of a crisis in the way that a Government should be.

Steven Paterson: As a new Member in 2015, what struck me about the whole Chilcot experience was the unacceptable delay. As the hon. Gentleman just said, we in this place want to take educated decisions, based on evidence, so for us—and more so for the families of the soldiers who died—the length of time it took to produce the report was unacceptable. He made welcome recommendations about having a stricter remit and stricter timing for such inquiries. How can we take that forward in this House to make it happen? Do we need to have a vote on it, or is it in the Government’s gift to do or not do this?

Bernard Jenkin: Ultimately, it is in the hands of this House, subject to whipping and all the pressures that are put on it, to decide how inquiries are conducted. If the Government are setting up an inquiry that this House does not like, this House can stop it; we are a sovereign House and that is what we should do. I agree so much with the hon. Gentleman’s comment that the length of time this took was unacceptable. Indeed, we make the point that it undermined not only the credibility of the inquiry, but the very confidence in public institutions that it was intended to try to restore. It did not serve the purpose that this House might have wanted it to serve because it took so long, and of course it was grievous torture for the families of those who had lost life and limb in this conflict.

SUICIDE PREVENTION

HEALTH COMMITTEE

Sarah Wollaston: (Select Committee Statement): The scale of the avoidable loss of life from suicide is unacceptable. In 2015, 4,820 people in England took their own lives, and across the UK 6,122 people did so in 2014. But those official figures underestimate the true scale of the devastating loss from suicide, which remains the leading cause of death in young people between the ages of 15 and 24, and it is the leading cause of death in men under 50. It is strongly linked to deprivation and is a major contributor to health inequality. However, the key message our Committee heard throughout its inquiry is that suicide is preventable, and we can and should be doing far more to make sure we reduce it. That was the key focus of our suicide prevention inquiry.
First, let me thank all those who contributed to the inquiry, particularly families bereaved by suicide, and those who had experienced suicidal ideation and been users of mental health services. Their evidence was courageous and compelling. I also thank all the voluntary groups and volunteers who are working to provide support for people in crisis, and all our front-line staff. Finally, I thank my fellow Committee members and our Committee staff, particularly Laura Daniels, Katya Cassidy and Huw Yardley.
I shall now move on to what we found in our inquiry. First, let me say to the Government that we welcome their suicide prevention strategy, but as with any strategy the key is implementation. We therefore call on them to go far further in implementing and resourcing it, and to give greater attention to the workforce in order to make the important improvements come forward. We also make further recommendations and we are disappointed that the Government have not gone further in a number of areas. We know that we can take actions to reduce suicide and we highlight a number of these in our report. For example, we know that half of those who take their own lives have previously self-harmed, and we feel it is really disappointing that the experience of so many of those who have self-harmed when they go to casualty departments is that they are made to feel that they are wasting people’s time. We know that liaison psychiatry makes an enormous difference, but there are resourcing issues on that.
We also know that those who have been in-patients in mental health settings should receive a visit within three days of leaving in-patient services, but there simply are not the resources available for that to be put in place. We call on the Government to go further in looking at the workforce and resourcing needed for that to happen. We know of other serious issues, for example, the fact that about a third of people who take their own lives are not in contact with either primary care or specialist health services in the year before their death. We feel that suicide is everyone’s business and we all have a responsibility to reduce the stigma attached to mental health so that it is easier for people to seek help. Again, I pay tribute to all those who are working in this field, reaching out to people in non-health settings and making a real difference. However, many of those voluntary groups are coming under great financial pressure. It is welcome that the Government have announced that  there will be £5 million for suicide prevention, although that does not come in until next year, with £10 million in each of the subsequent two years. However, we feel that that is too little, too late, particularly given the cuts to public health grants and across local authorities to those services that can reach out to people who are vulnerable to suicide.
We would like the Government to put a greater focus on adequately resourcing the measures they set out in their suicide prevention strategy. We would particularly like them to look at how those plans are being implemented. It is very welcome that 95% of local authorities have a suicide prevention plan either in place or in development, but there does not seem to be sufficient quality assurance for those plans. We would therefore like a national implementation board to look at how we can move those plans forward, because any strategy, however good, cannot be effective if it is sitting on the shelf and not being implemented. That was one of the key messages we heard from our witnesses, and I know that the Minister will have heard it from the National Suicide Prevention Strategy Advisory Group loud and clear.
We also know that there are things that need to happen when people are in contact with services. It is disappointing that greater focus has not been put on the consensus statement for information sharing. On too many occasions, when someone hears that a loved one has taken their life it is the first time they have heard that their loved one had been in contact with services—nobody had let them know. Understandably, health professionals are concerned about issues of confidentiality and consent, but what the consensus statement makes clear is that if we ask people in the right way, they are much more likely to give that consent to information sharing. We would like to have seen the Government put a greater focus on how we can increase awareness of how health professionals go about sharing information with people’s loved ones, because we believe that will save lives.
We think that measures can be taken across the board both out in the community and within health care settings and specialist settings, but the Minister will know that our inquiry also examines the role of the media. Irresponsible reporting of suicide increases suicide rates, as we know, and far more can be done within the broadcast media, the mainstream media, on social media and on the internet to make sure that we save lives. I was very pleased that during today’s Culture, Media and Sport questions the Culture Secretary agreed to a meeting with me, but I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), will assure me that she will be liaising with colleagues in the Government to make sure we can save lives in that way.
Finally, I wish to touch on the issue of data. We know that there is an issue relating to the increasing use of narrative verdicts which are hard to code. That results in the official data we have on suicide under-representing the true scale of the avoidable loss of life, and with the huge variation we have around the country this makes it much more difficult to understand what works best in preventing suicide. We would like the Minister to revisit the recommendations in our report on how to provide better training to coroners and how we review the evidential standard and move from using “beyond reasonable doubt” to the “balance of probability” in recording suicide. Only in that way can we ensure that  we are doing absolutely everything possible to protect families and individuals in future. I commend the report on suicide prevention to the House and call on the Government to go further in implementation.

Barbara Keeley: Labour welcomes the recommendations in the report, and I join the hon. Lady in thanking Select Committee members and staff for their work.
The Committee visited the award-winning Salford mental health liaison team, which offers 24/7 mental health support at Salford Royal hospital and has been able to halve the admission rates for people with mental health problems. The Royal College of Psychiatrists reminds us that only 7% of emergency departments provide 24/7 liaison psychiatry services, and said it would be difficult to recruit enough psychiatrists and other staff to provide such a service in every hospital—the hon. Lady touched on that in her statement. What does she think the Government must do to ensure that there are enough trained staff to establish and sustain liaison psychiatry services in every acute hospital to help to deliver the suicide prevention strategy?

Sarah Wollaston: We need to start right back at medical school recruitment and what happens in medical schools and beyond, to encourage more health professionals—not just doctors, but nurses as well—to consider psychiatry and mental health services as a career. One of the key issues is the lack of a workforce. I know the Government are working with Health Education England to improve the situation, but we would like to see them go further. Also, we need to ensure that resources get to the frontline.

Cheryl Gillan: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her chairmanship of the Select Committee and its recent report. She will know that recent studies, particularly one done in Sweden, have indicated that people with high-functioning autism spectrum disorder have a ninefold increased suicide risk. What more could be done to help those individuals and their families? How can we raise awareness among the agencies that intervene with them and their families, and particularly among health professionals, so that they are aware of the heightened risk?

Sarah Wollaston: I commend the work my right hon. Friend has done over her whole career on autism and to highlight what more can be done to help those individuals and their families. She will know that one of the key barriers is having an assessment in the first place for people who suffer from autism. Too often, they fall between the gaps in mental health services. My key message would be that we must ensure that they receive the services and support that they need and that that is delivered in the right way.

Phil Boswell: I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this critical issue to the House and I fully support the report. I declare an interest as the patron of Chris’s House, a centre for help, response and, critically, intervention on suicide, and the first 24-hour interventionist suicide support service in Scotland. We set up the centre to offer a safe environment in which people in crisis may  have respite from their current unwellness by finding refuge in Chris’s House and their involvement in an individually tailored programme to offer support and respite throughout their journey to wellbeing. I urge others throughout the UK to look at this more interventionist model and replicate it to the benefit of all UK citizens. I further urge as many people as possible to join us in our Walk of Hope on 6 May 2017 in Glasgow, as we walk from darkness to light to raise awareness about suicide prevention.

Sarah Wollaston: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution and join him in paying tribute to voluntary groups throughout the country that are doing extraordinary work to reach out to people in crisis. As he will know, the level of variation in support is a key issue, along with the financial challenge faced by people around the UK who are trying to provide proper support.

David Nuttall: I thank my hon. Friend very much indeed for the work that she and her Committee have done on this issue. The suicide rate among men is three times that among women, and the gap has increased since 1981. As she mentioned, suicide is the leading cause of death for men under 50. A particular problem is contagion, whereby one suicide can often lead to a spate of others in the same area. During the inquiry, did the Committee identify how this aspect could be dealt with?

Sarah Wollaston: I thank my hon. Friend for his important question. We absolutely looked at that issue and specifically mentioned it in our report. He will know that part of the problem is that irresponsible reporting can sometimes lead to contagion. We know that when local areas work together closely to identify suicides, particularly early clusters, measures can be taken—people can go into workplaces, schools and colleges—to provide support and stop it. It does, though, require that we notice it early, so the Committee urges coroners to work with local authorities and public health teams to ensure that they are aware of the high risk of suicides spreading.

Lisa Cameron: I thank the Select Committee and the hon. Lady for the report. The Scottish National party welcomes the recommendations and urges that they are fully taken into account. We particularly urge the Government to commit to rolling out crisis intervention teams and support to prevent suicide, so that people in such circumstances can be followed up directly. Suicidal individuals are not always mentally ill, and lengthy waiting lists for psychological treatment or attendance at A&E are sometimes not the most appropriate options. Liaison psychiatry is under-resourced, and urgent follow-up through crisis support is needed. How will we ensure liaison between services? Only when that occurs seamlessly between health, social care, community services and criminal justice will we prevent suicidal individuals from falling between the gaps.

Sarah Wollaston: I thank the hon. Lady for highlighting a really important point about the need for communication, not only with families but within services. One problem is that there is what happens in local authorities and what happens in the health service, and too often there is not sufficient communication between the two.

Chris Elmore: I congratulate the hon. Lady and her Select Committee on their work. She might be aware that in the mid-2000s there was a series of tragic suicides across the Bridgend County Borough Council area, of which my constituency forms part. I obviously was not a Member of this House when those suicides took place, but they are a major part  of people’s memories of what happened across those communities.
On media attention, the hon. Lady may be aware that a film was made about those suicides that was not welcomed by the various communities; I am glad she is pursuing the part of the report on tackling the media impact regarding the glorification of suicide, if I can put it like that. Suicide prevention and health policy more widely are devolved to the Welsh Government, but will she consider sharing the Select Committee’s report with the Welsh Assembly’s Health, Social Care and Sport Committee? I passionately believe that if we can learn best practice on tackling suicides from Select Committees in the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly or, indeed, the Welsh Assembly, we should share that throughout the UK.

Sarah Wollaston: I would be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman and share the report, as he suggests, because I agree that we should be sharing best practice throughout the devolved nations and England. On the specific point about the role of the media, the Samaritans has produced really clear guidelines, which I hope all media organisations will look at closely. We should also go beyond broadcast and print media and look at the role of social media and the internet.

Nicola Blackwood: I welcome the Health Committee’s report on suicide prevention and congratulate my hon. Friend and her Committee on their work on this very important issue. I join her in thanking those with lived experience who bravely contributed to the Committee’s work; the impact of their contribution cannot be overestimated.
Every death by suicide is a tragedy that has a devastating effect on families and communities, which is why the Government are committed to reducing the national suicide rate by 10% by 2020. We want all areas to learn lessons from organisations such as Mersey Care, with its zero suicide ambition. We were particularly grateful that the Committee published an interim report in December, as it allowed us to address many of its recommendations in our update of the national strategy. These included how we are driving local delivery, addressing stigma, improving suicide bereavement services and increasing awareness of the consensus statement for information sharing for people at risk of suicide.  However, we do accept that we need to go further on implementing the cross-Government national suicide prevention strategy, which is why we published the   updated strategy to strengthen delivery in key areas, including in implementation. It is also why we will continue to provide further updates.
The refreshed strategy now includes better targeting of high-risk groups and, for the first time, addresses self-harm as an issue in its own right, which is one of the most significant issues of suicide risk. We are working with the National Suicide Prevention Strategy Advisory Group, delivery partners across Government, and other agencies and stakeholders to develop an improved implementation framework.
We are already making good progress in ensuring that all local areas have a suicide prevention plan in place by the end of the year. To date, 95% of local areas have a suicide prevention plan in place or in development. We will also work with local areas to assess the quality of those plans, building on guidance on good practice. We have run a series of suicide-prevention planning masterclasses carried out by Public Health England to improve that quality. We have also published guidance to local authorities in January on developing and providing suicide bereavement services as an important plank of the plan.
Furthermore, we have announced that we will publish a Green Paper this year on children and young people’s mental health and develop a national internet strategy, which will explore the impact of the internet and social media on suicide prevention and mental health. That will address some of the issues that my hon. Friend has raised about the media and suicide. Hon. Members will also know that we are committed to all A&Es having core liaison services by 2020. They have rightly raised the fact that the workforce will be essential in delivering that ambition, and we will imminently be publishing our mental health workforce strategy, the performance of which I am sure that the Select Committee will closely scrutinise. We will carefully consider all the recommendations made by the Committee in this report and respond to them in due course.
My hon. Friend has rightly raised the connection between mental health services and suicide prevention. Does she agree that we cannot think about suicide without considering the broader matter of mental health? Will she and the Committee join me in welcoming the wide range of measures set out by the Prime Minister in January, in addition to the five year forward view for mental health, with a focus on earlier intervention and prevention in mental health services, because those improvements will be essential if we are to make the progress on suicide prevention that all of us in this House want to see?

Sarah Wollaston: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for her comments and agree with her absolutely about the importance of prevention and early intervention. I look forward to the strategies to which she has referred and to working with her to do all that we can to improve mental health and to reduce the terrible toll from suicide.

BACKBENCH BUSINESS

ENERGY PRICES

John Penrose: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the big six energy firms’ treatment of out-of-contract energy customers on default tariffs; believes immediate action is needed to protect those consumers, and that pushing customers to start switching will not fix the problem sufficiently quickly or completely on its own; and calls on the industry, regulators and the Government to consider solutions which recognise that many people lead busy lives and that switching their energy supplier may not always be a high priority.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for finding the time for us to debate this important and topical motion today. I also thank my two co-sponsors, the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), and the 50 or so MPs from across the political spectrum who all feel that the treatment of most energy customers is sufficiently outrageous and unjust to merit raising it here, in the mother of all Parliaments.
Most industries believe that customer loyalty is hugely important; an asset to be prized. Most businesses reward their most loyal customers with special treatment to keep them coming back—whether it is a supermarket’s loyalty card, an airline’s air miles scheme or just the coffee card that gives you a free cuppa after it has been stamped 10 times. Energy is an exception. What other industry does not give its most loyal customers any discounts or special deals, but instead charges them higher prices than anyone else? Which companies believe that loyalty should be exploited, not rewarded? Which one of them treats their longest-serving customers as chumps, to be quietly and secretively switched onto expensive, unfair deals when they are not looking, and then milked; ripped off mercilessly for as long as possible? The answer is the big six energy firms. The rest of the energy industry is pretty good. There are 30 or more newish energy firms snapping at the heels of the big six, and they understand that customer loyalty matters if they want to grow.

David Nuttall: As my hon. Friend will know, there has been a huge roll-out of smart meters, which is one way of people keeping an eye on their energy bills. Unfortunately, though, when people do switch providers, they find that their smart meter has to be replaced at the same time. Does he agree that that is one reason why perhaps some people are becoming unwilling to change providers?

John Penrose: There are many reasons why switching has not caught on to anything like the degree that we need it to if we are to transform the sector. I understand that one factor may very well be this problem with the introduction of smart meters, but there are others, too. My hon. Friend was quite right to point that issue out, and I will mention some others later on in my speech.
As I said, there are 30 or more newish energy firms snapping at the heels of the big six, and they understand that loyalty matters. Obviously, some are more impressive than others, but they all have one thing in common:  they are hungry. They know they have to impress and delight their clients, because they cannot rely on exploiting a “back book” of long-term customers to stay fat and happy. The figures are stark. Roughly two thirds of all customers—at least 20 million households—are on the expensive, rip-off deals: the standard variable tariff. A minority of customers switch to a different energy supplier regularly, but most of us do not. The amount of switching has been creeping upwards, but much of the change has come from the same bargain hunters churning round and round in ever faster circles between different energy firms. The number of households that have rarely or never switched remains stubbornly high, which suits the big six just fine. So, what is the answer? How do we put energy customers in the driving seat? Do we give them the same power to choose a new supplier as easily as we switch to a different brand of toothpaste or coffee? How do we make them compete to delight us, rather than quietly exploiting us instead?
First, we have to make switching a lot easier. Choosing that different brand of toothpaste in a supermarket is easy: we just pick up a different tube off the shelf. Too many people find switching to a different energy firm is scary and stressful, and are frightened off as a result. Even the price comparison sites, which have an interest in making the process as simple and as easy as possible, say that huge numbers of customers abandon their search when they are asked a basic, essential question such as what their current energy usage is. Others think that switching is likely to go wrong, so they might end up cold and shivering in a home without power if the move does not happen smoothly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) has already mentioned the impact on some households of the new smart meters. Others simply have not got the time. Many of us lead busy lives, juggling careers, childcare, school runs and goodness knows what else. Switching our energy supplier can easily become one of those things that we all know we should do, like washing the car or joining a gym, but we never quite get round to doing. The difference is that other products do not automatically switch us to a super-expensive brand of toothpaste or coffee unless we tell them not to. They do not expect us to be on our toes all the time to stop them changing the terms of our deal and ripping us off when we are not looking. For toothpaste, coffee and almost everything else, loyalty and inertia work in the customer’s favour; they are on our side. That does not apply to energy. If we relax, they will have us.
Fortunately, there are some simple things that make switching easier, less stressful, simpler and not so scary. The main one is making our customer data easily available to a new energy firm if we give them our permission. That way we do not have to fill in endless online pages with information that we cannot remember or that we have not got. At the moment, the information can take days to come through, and the big six throw all sorts of obstacles in the way. They have no interest in making it easy or simple.
In future, we should just be able to ask our new firm to get it from our existing supplier in a few seconds, with a click of a mouse or a tick of a box—simple, quick, easy and safe. The number of people switching will go through the roof if we do that.

George Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is making a very good point, and I agree with it. Does he agree though that it is more problematic for people who live in tower blocks, where the energy supply is collectively controlled by the landlord who might not have any incentive to switch to another supplier?

John Penrose: The right hon. Gentleman is exactly right. One of the things that may be improved by the roll-out of smart meters, which we heard about earlier, is those collective bills, which would be broken down. Many energy suppliers and others in the industry are concerned that too many hopes may be being invested in smart meters and they may not necessarily produce a lasting uplift in customer engagement and interest—they will start off as an interesting new gadget in the corner of the room, but after a few weeks or months that interest may die away. We will have to wait and see, but he is right that there is an opportunity, at the very least.
In the spirit of trying to make switching simpler and less scary, firms such as Make It Cheaper, Flipper, OVO and Money Saving Expert provide end-to-end services that do the donkey work for us, handling everything from finding a better deal to organising the switch itself. They appeal to those of us who currently think that even the most convenient price comparison sites take too much of our valuable time.

Charles Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the problem with the big six and other generators, such as Veolia, is that they are not straightforward and honest with their customers and stakeholders? Until they are straightforward and honest, there will be disquiet about their conduct.

John Penrose: That is one of the underlying concerns about the way that this industry operates. People are not necessarily asked at the moment when they are switched on to the default tariff, so when they notice that they have been—if they notice—they feel that they are being ripped off, because those default tariffs are so much higher. That leads to distrust of the suppliers, and that is one of the things corroding the underlying trust in the industry as a whole. It is incredibly dangerous. I think some forward-thinking people in the industry understand that and the brand damage that is being done, not just to individual firms but to the sector as a whole. Trust is slow to gain and easy to lose. My hon. Friend has a background in marketing and consumer business, so I am sure that he understands what I mean.
Rolling out the end-to-end services that I mentioned, which are still in their infancy, should persuade a new group of customers who currently do not switch at all to do so, extending the number of people in that stubborn two thirds of the customer base who do not switch, or do so very rarely.
These changes, taken together, are essential steps to solving the underlying fundamental problems that make the energy market such a rip-off. If the Government, the regulator—Ofgem—and perhaps even enlightened energy firms themselves are willing to take those steps, abuses and consumer detriment will start to fall and customers will finally be in the driving seat, as we already are and expect to be for everything else, from toothpaste and coffee to cornflakes and soap.
But how long will this take to fix? How quickly will the rip-off stop? Even then, will there still be stubborn pockets of problems left over here and there? Given that fully two thirds of all customers are on these rip-off tariffs and that proportion has been glacially slow to change, there is an awfully long way still to go. Even under the most optimistic scenarios, an unacceptably large number of households will still be being ripped off for too many years yet. So we need a stopgap—a temporary solution—while all those other changes to make switching easier and less scary start to take effect.
The answer is a relative price cap—a maximum mark-up between each energy firm’s best deal and its default tariff. If someone forgot to switch to a new deal when their existing one came to an end, they would not be ripped off too badly, but people would still be able to save plenty of money when they got round to switching again, so it would always still be worth their while to become engaged and take that additional action, should they be so minded.
Under these proposals, energy firms would still be able to compete on price—they could still decide whether they wanted to be the Aldi or Lidl of the industry, or the Waitrose or Marks and Spencer—and could still have as many tariffs as they wanted, so there would be plenty of customer choice. If someone wanted a green energy tariff, that would be fine. If someone did not like computers or wanted to do it the old-fashioned way with offline paper and an ink deal, that would be no problem.
I am delighted to confirm today that the idea of a relative cap is supported by three of the largest challenger brands—OVO, Utility Warehouse and Octopus Energy, which cover hundreds of thousands of customers between them—and I hope to persuade others to join the cause in due course.
Crucially, a relative cap is a lot better than a normal price cap. A relative cap would mean that each energy firm could still adjust its prices whenever the wholesale price of gas or electricity went up or down, but a normal cap would mean that Ofgem had to approve any changes, which inevitably would be slower and create work for lawyers and lobbyists. A relative cap would also mean that energy firms still had plenty of incentives to innovate and find new ways to please particular groups of customers however they wanted, without needing Ofgem’s approval first.
Lobbyists and lawyers will hate a relative cap, because there will be much less lobbying and lawyering to do. Putting customers in the driver’s seat would mean fewer fat fees and fat lunches. If customers could switch their supplier as easily as changing their brand of cornflakes or soap, we politicians, and the bureaucrats and regulators, would rightly matter a lot less in this area. Because of the extra clarity and simplicity, a relative cap would mean that we could deregulate, too, by striking out reams of regulations, red tape and guidelines that complicate the market and stop energy firms thinking about their customers first and foremost and make them focus on their regulators, lawyers and compliance directors instead. A relative cap would reduce red tape rather than add  to it.
But the people who would hate a relative cap the most are the big six, because it would force them to treat us, their consumers, fairly, to reward loyalty rather than exploit it and to fight hard to keep long-standing customers  rather than take us for granted. In other words, it would force the industry to be a normal industry with normal firms where the customer, not the regulator or politicians, is king.
I know that both Ministers and regulators understand this problem. They have spoken to me and many others in this House about it, and both the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Prime Minister have been trenchant in criticising the sector for not delivering an economy that works for everyone, so I hope that they will accept the thrust of this motion.
The time for action has come. We simply cannot argue, as others have tried to, that even though fully two thirds of the country is being ripped off, we are not going to help or protect those victims because it is their own silly fault if they are not savvy enough to switch. Yes, we need to make switching easier and safer so that, eventually, most of us do it most of the time. That is clearly the right long-term answer. But I hope that Ministers accept that, until that glorious day, we cannot simply sit back and allow consumers to be harmed on this scale for this long and do nothing. We need to  do more.

Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is further to a point of order I raised a couple of hours ago with Mr Speaker about a prime ministerial statement on the Scottish constitution that he pointed out was hypothetical at that time. He said that if such a statement were made, he would entertain a statement from the Dispatch Box by the Prime Minister. That statement has now been made by the Prime Minister, and it has been interpreted as an attempt to bounce the Scottish Parliament’s vote next Tuesday on a Scottish referendum. She seems to be dictating the timing of any such referendum. These points were put to her at Prime Minister’s Question Time yesterday, and she had a full and fair opportunity to give her answer and to be questioned.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you will understand that parliamentary accountability means that if somebody such as the Prime Minister makes a statement about a change of policy, Members of Parliament are prepared to ask questions about it—questions such as, “What happens if the Scottish Parliament is not bounced and votes for a referendum next week? Why does the Prime Minister believe that the timing is not right when this House is going to be asked in 18 months’ time to take or leave a deal with Europe?” Fundamentally, there is arrogance in saying to people in Scotland that they shall not have the right to an act of self-determination or saying to this Parliament that we do not have the right to examination.
Madam Deputy Speaker, have you had a request from the Prime Minister to come to the Dispatch Box and go for parliamentary accountability, or does she feel that Scotland is some sort of county as opposed to the country that it actually is?

Natascha Engel: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that contribution, which was not a point of order. I was here when he made his previous point of order—the Speaker was in the Chair—and I heard the response to it. I have been in the  Chamber the whole time, so I have not heard any statement made by the Prime Minister, but the right hon. Gentleman has successfully put all his questions and concerns on the record.

Iain Wright: I congratulate the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose); it is an honour to follow his speech. He set out the arguments incredibly well. He is passionate and knowledgeable, and his points about the energy market were incredibly measured. I pay tribute to him, my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) for securing this important debate. The issue affects all our constituents—millions of people up and down the country—and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to the debate.
The excellent opening address of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare made it very clear that the energy market is not working in the best interests of customers. That is not to say that there is any collusion whatever between the energy companies—far from it. Ofgem told us on the Select Committee on Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy that the major energy companies have quite different price strategies; there can be a difference of about £140 a year between what the major energy suppliers charge dual fuel customers. In addition, as the hon. Gentleman said, there have been welcome new entrants to the energy market, which have disrupted, in a very positive way, the energy oligopoly that has been in place for far too long. There are more innovative companies offering better choice, service, and value to the energy customer. Ten years ago, the big six companies dominated the entire market, with a 100% market share. Last year, that had moved to 85%, which is great. That is positive news. New entrants are taking market share and offering quite competitive fixed-term deals.
I said that there was no evidence of collusion between energy companies, but there are marked similarities between the major energy companies’ business models, and they do not act in the best interests of customers; in fact, as the hon. Gentleman said, they actually punish customer loyalty. Their business models are predicated on a sizeable proportion, if not the majority, of their customer base being, and continuing indefinitely, on their standard variable tariff. Looking at the big six companies, 74% of British Gas customers are on its SVT; for EDF, it is 56%; for E.ON, 73%; for npower, 59%; and for ScottishPower, 50%; and an astonishing 91% of SSE’s customer base is on the SVT.
SVTs are, in the main, the most expensive of all the energy tariffs available, yet almost half of all customers have been with the same supplier for five years or more, and 44% of customers have never changed tariff. It is almost guaranteed that those households are overpaying for their energy. The Competition and Markets Authority estimates that, due to a lack of competition in the market, collectively customers are overpaying for their energy to the tune of £1.4 billion. Despite all that, and the very clear evidence that the market is not working in the interests of customers, energy companies continue to penalise customers for their loyalty. The longer a person is with a company, the more they are likely to pay. In a modern, customer services-oriented economy, what other market could possibly say that?
When npower raised its prices by 14% last month, Ofgem stated to the Select Committee quite categorically that it did not see a case for such a significant rise. Ofgem’s chief executive told our Committee that wholesale costs had risen by about 15% in the past year. However, the overall cost of energy was marginally below what it had been three years ago.

Charles Walker: I made this same point to my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose): the big six and Veolia behave in this way because there is a culture of arrogance and entitlement. That is the problem, and we—or, more to the point, the companies—need to address that culture.

Iain Wright: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. A market has to be dynamic. Companies should be nervous about customers moving away, but customers are not doing that. As I said, these companies’ business models are entirely predicated on the fact that people will, for a variety of reasons, stay on the expensive tariff; because of that, though companies may provide loss-leading deals for new customers, they scoff at customer loyalty. This market is not working in anybody’s interests. It is not dynamic, efficient or effective, and ultimately it is not benefiting customers.

Charles Walker: The problem is not just the way that organisations such as Veolia and the big six treat their customers; it is the way that they treat their regulators and this place—elected representatives.

Iain Wright: This is not just about price and cost; it is about customer service, and what teeth the regulator has—and, ultimately, the Government provide—to ensure a dynamic energy market.
It is true that wholesale costs went up by about 15% last year, and obviously the wholesale cost of energy is ultimately a big part of the energy bill that goes to the customer, but the cost of energy is marginally lower than it was three year ago. Companies hedge their risks when it comes to purchasing energy, which should flatten any price spikes that they experience when buying their energy on the global market. That means that retail prices to customers might not fall as quickly and as sharply when wholesale prices fall, but conversely, it certainly should stop big price hikes when wholesale prices rise, and we have seen no evidence whatsoever of that.
Last month, in announcing its big price rise—the biggest for many years—npower stated on its website:
“over the past few years, the cost of supplying energy to your home has increased, as well as the amount we need to pay towards government schemes.”
This is slightly unusual for me, but allow me robustly to defend the Government. The phrases that npower and other companies have used about the cost of Government schemes are simply wrong. The Committee on Climate Change today published its analysis of energy prices and household costs, which showed that 9% of the average dual fuel bill for domestic customers is accounted for by the cost of moving towards a UK-based low-carbon electricity supply and support for energy efficiency home improvements. The notion that energy companies can justify price increases through Government action or policies is simply disingenuous.

Caroline Flint: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is worth everybody reading that report from the Committee on Climate Change. Does he accept that part of that 9% of the bill goes on helping people—sometimes the poorest in our communities —to reduce their household bill by introducing energy efficiency measures? It is a worthwhile 9% investment.

Iain Wright: Absolutely, and as my right hon. Friend, who has done fantastic work on this, knows all too well, energy efficiency measures are a key plank of ensuring our competitiveness, tackling fuel poverty and addressing our decarbonisation targets. Everybody wins when energy efficiency measures are prioritised.

George Howarth: My hon. Friend is making a very good case. Does he agree that the energy efficiency measures introduced in tower blocks, and sometimes in low-rise properties, can be complicated to use, and if they are not used properly, they can be more expensive to the consumer? I have had two examples in my constituency over the past few years in which people have ended up paying more for a lower standard of heating. Does he think that there is a case for the Government looking at issuing guidance to local authorities and registered social landlords about how to install these systems and inform tenants about how they are supposed to be used?

Iain Wright: My right hon. Friend makes a really powerful point. I was in the Chamber when he made an intervention about switching suppliers and noted that often people in tower blocks are not able to do that. He makes a powerful case and vividly illustrates that the market is not working in the interests of consumers, who might often be in low-waged and vulnerable households. The Government and regulator need to take steps to make sure that the market works.
Ofgem told us that energy companies have increased their prices largely because they have not been successful in controlling their own costs. Sufficient and efficient companies have been able to reduce and absorb cost increases, and have therefore passed on those benefits to the customers by eliminating any risk of price increases. Others have not done so and, due to the nature of their business model, which I explained earlier, feel that they do not have to consider customers because customers simply will not switch and will continue to stay on the most expensive tariff. Customers are literally paying the price for the failure of energy companies to manage their businesses and control their costs. I said to the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) that I would mention that this is about not just costs, but customer service and a lack of trust in energy companies. There is a huge number of examples. I imagine that every hon. Member has cases regarding this in their inbox.
Citizens Advice told the Committee that companies are getting the very basics wrong with late, missing and inaccurate bills. When they get things wrong, they are failing to provide customers with redress. The market is simply not working. So what is the solution? The current policy response seems to be a dual approach—to encourage companies to engage with their customers more efficiently and to communicate widely the benefits that come from switching. Switching should certainly be encouraged, as  customers can make savings of hundreds of pounds if they switch. On the back of the recent price rises from energy companies, I switched the energy supplier for our house and we saved £249. There are big savings to be made. I encourage customers to switch, switch and switch again.
As the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare said, a small proportion of domestic customers do switch, and they switch very often. They are savvy customers who know the market and want to get the best possible deal, but that remains relatively rare. The vast majority of energy customers do not switch for a wide variety of reasons. For example, people may think, “Can I switch? Aren’t I still with the local electricity board?”, “Will it be too complex? I’m frightened of the hassle factor”, or “I’m frightened that my energy supply might be disrupted.” There is a whole range of things, not least, as the hon. Gentleman said, that people lead busy lives, so they often do not consider an essential utility such as energy. It is not sufficient to state that the energy market will be fixed by encouraging more switching and better engagement. There needs to be a fair deal for all energy customers—for the two thirds who do not switch, and not just for those who do so.
The Government often talk a good game when it comes to tackling energy prices. When it was revealed in the autumn that the energy companies were making higher profits than reported, the Secretary of State hauled those companies into his Department for an explanation, but nothing materialised. When npower raises its prices last month, a spokesman for the Prime Minister said:
“We are concerned by Npower’s planned increases—we are committed to getting the best for households. Suppliers are protected from recent fluctuations in wholesale energy prices which are set two years in advance so we expect them to treat customers fairly and clearly where markets are not working we are prepared to act.”
Only this week, in answer to my question during business, energy and industrial strategy questions, the Secretary of State said that “time is up” for those energy companies. But no action has been taken. Customers will have to endure in the next days, weeks and possibly months high prices rises with no action taken whatever. The regulator says the price rises are not justified, No. 10 says that it is concerned, and the Department has had energy companies hauled in, but nothing has been done. This does not seem to reflect the urgency that should be given to the issue. The key point that I would like to be made in this debate is the Minister saying how the Government are going act—and act now—to ensure that customers get a better deal.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare has an important policy response suggestion when it comes to a restricted price cap, and this could be an important means of providing customers with some respite. He mentioned a number of energy companies that have put forward the idea, and there are some quite striking quotes from the people who run those companies. Stephen Fitzpatrick, chief executive of Ovo Energy, said that the energy market was failing because companies were
“free to charge whatever they think they can get away with, at the expense of disengaged or confused customers.”
He also said:
“The time has come for the Government to step in and take bold action to protect consumers’ interests.”
Greg Jackson, chief executive of Octopus Energy, which has about 80,000 customers, said:
“Energy customers are being robbed in broad daylight, and it’s time for decisive action to end the misery for millions.”
Will the Government look favourably on the hon. Gentleman’s point about a price cap? It is very clear that, at a time of crippling price rises from companies seemingly indifferent to the plight of customers, there needs to be a fundamental change to ensure that the market works for all. In the Minister’s response to the debate, he must set out the detailed steps he will take immediately and in the longer term to act in the interests of customers, and set out the timetable. The time for strong words, for hauling the companies into the Department, and for Green Papers and future legislation is over. If the regulator says that there is no justification for price increases and the Prime Minister is saying that action needs to happen, why can we not have action now? Customers are facing price rises now. We should not have to wait for a Green Paper or legislation in the months to come. We need to act immediately. On that basis, what are the Government going to do now?

Dawn Butler: I congratulate the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on securing the debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee.
I will pick up where my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) left off regarding the Government. The Conservative party has changed its leader and, in the process, it seems to have changed some of its policies, thinking that we would not notice. To be honest, it is just not good enough. Many hon. Members have campaigned hard on energy pricing. In response to Labour’s campaigning on energy prices, the former Prime Minister, David Cameron, said that his Government would legislate to ensure that customers received the “lowest possible tariffs”. The current Prime Minister has refused to honour that pledge, and I do not understand why, especially after she stood on the steps of No. 10 promising to look after vulnerable people. That must include people who suffer from fuel poverty including older people, people who have English as a second language and those whom my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool says cannot switch easily. They are vulnerable people who are not being protected by the Government.
The Government are proving just to be all talk on this important issue, which is a real shame. They must act to stop the jump in energy prices, or they could adopt one of Labour’s policies—they are used to adopting our policies—and renationalise the energy companies. They could listen to the Mayor of London, who has some innovative ideas on providing energy to people in London. The price hike is a bitter blow to millions of families that will add more than £100 to their typical bill. When people are struggling to make ends meet, this is just not good enough. This is one of the largest ever increases we have seen, and it is simply unacceptable.
The recent Fuel Poverty Awareness day brought home the reality of the fuel poverty situation across the country. Families are facing the agonising decision of whether to  heat or eat, and my constituency in Brent has seen a rise in food banks as a result. Last year, the first ever fuel bank opened in my constituency in order to help residents, especially those on prepayment meters, to get through the winter and difficult times. The food banks came to the conclusion that a fuel bank was necessary as people were approaching them to ask only for food in tins—food that can be eaten cold—because they did not have the money on their meter to heat up or cook food. Lots of people were just surviving on baked beans, for instance. More should and must be done.
I have been campaigning on energy prices for many years because my constituents have struggled with their energy bills, and more and more have come to my surgery with problems. The hardest hit are those on prepayment meters; the House of Commons Library produced figures showing that prepayment customers pay around 15% more on their gas bills than direct debit customers.
So I launched a prepayment meter campaign, and I am really pleased that lots of Members—on both sides of the House, I must say—participated in it. I called on the Government to ensure that fair tariffs were made available for all. Following the campaign, the Competition and Markets Authority recommended a cap on prepayment meters. That was a significant victory, and I was really pleased, but although the cap will reduce the cost for prepayment customers, it will not reduce it by enough—only by about £80. However, the price penalty on prepayment customers can be as much as £320, so a lot more still needs to be done.
One in five families is being hit by prepayment penalties, and they are often the “just about managing” families. As I say, these are the people the Prime Minister often talks about—the very people the Conservative party public relations machine goes into overdrive about, saying that the Conservative party represents them. If it does represent them, the Government would surely do something about this issue, because these people’s inability to heat their homes means they live in damp homes, and it is reckoned that cold -related ill health costs the NHS around £1.36 billion each year. If we want to help the national health service and “just about managing” families, tackling this issue is one step that can be taken very quickly—if there is the will on the Government Benches.
Fuel poverty is a massive problem. It affects over 4 million UK households. In my constituency, one in eight households is classified as fuel-poor, which is higher than the national average of one in 10. The Labour party will continue to work towards ending fuel poverty. When in government, we will put energy efficiency back on the agenda. Struggling families need more than warm words from the Government—they need warm homes.

Caroline Flint: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler). I congratulate her on the work she has done serving communities and families that are over-reliant on prepayment meters, and it is a welcome change that they will get some help in the months ahead. I would also say that I have a number of people living in the private rented sector in my constituency—I am sure the proportion is far higher in her constituency. It is a big  problem for tenants when landlords do not do enough to make sure that the homes they rent out—they often get housing benefit from the state for doing that—are not decent homes with proper energy-efficiency measures. I know that my hon. Friend will carry on working on behalf of her constituents and people elsewhere.
I would like to thank the co-sponsors of the debate, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) and the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), who helped to secure the support of 50 other hon. and right hon. Members to obtain this important debate.
My thanks also go to the Backbench Business Committee—Parliament’s own “Dragons’ Den”—for agreeing to our application. It was only five minutes before we went in that I realised the meeting was going to be broadcast, so I had to quickly get my act together, but we were clearly successful, and we secured this debate for today.
It is well known to family and friends that I love the movies. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Thank you. It is still on my bucket list to be an extra in one—I just put that out there. One of my favourite comedies is “Groundhog Day”, in which the character played by Bill Murray has to replay a single day until he sees the error of his ways. For me, today’s debate feels like “Groundhog Day” because we are reliving the same arguments about our uncompetitive energy market, companies’ poor customer service and ripping-off of customers on standard variable tariffs—points I have made for the past six years. The Ministers keep changing, but I am still here, and I hope that the Minister today, like Bill Murray in the film, will break this spell, because, not for the first time, the headlines have, as hon. Members have mentioned, been full of the eye-watering price increases made recently by four of the big six energy companies—price hikes that are completely unjustified.
However, in many respects, that is not the principal reason for this debate. We sought the debate to address the fact that the energy market is not working; it is failing Britain’s consumers in almost every respect. It does not promote effective competition. The regional giants created after privatisation remain the dominant players in their home regions 30 years later. We talk about the big six, but for many regions, it is the big one.
The energy market also does not promote transparency. In the period following the Thatcher privatisation of British Gas in 1986 and of the regional electricity boards in 1989, there was a succession of mergers and takeovers. That led to companies being, at one and the same time, energy retailers and power generators. Today, the generation and retail arms of these companies remain within pretty much the same corporate structures. One consequence of that is a complete lack of transparency over the price at which these companies sell energy to themselves before retailing to the public. The reforms Labour proposed in 2015 would have resolved that.
The energy market does not promote consumer confidence. The issue is not whether, superficially, one company offers a fixed-price deal for £150 less than another; it is why 88% of consumers still refuse to switch from one supplier to another. The evidence from the CMA survey of 7,000 consumers was clear: 56% had never switched supplier, or did not recall ever switching, and 72% had never switched tariff with an existing supplier. This market is suffering a long-term  crisis of consumer confidence. While a minority of customers shop around, the vast majority seem to want little or nothing to do with the energy companies.
That is not a sign of contentment—of millions of satisfied customers—but quite the opposite. The CMA found that the number of recorded customer complaints rose sixfold from 2008 to 2014. Ofgem’s own research between 2014 and 2016, which was published in September 2016, found that the proportion of domestic complainants who were very dissatisfied with how their complaint was handled increased significantly over that two-year period. The most recent figures showed that 67% of npower customers and 64% of Scottish Power customers were very dissatisfied. Even the medium-sized and smaller companies were not immune—we cannot let them off the hook. First Utility performed worst, with 63% of customers very dissatisfied. The figure for Utility Warehouse was 53%, and for OVO, it was 49%.
The Government preside over a domestic energy market that is not competitive, lacks transparency and has a hell of a lot of dissatisfied consumers. Those factors alone should ring alarm bells in Whitehall and Westminster, but it is the outcome for consumers that ensures that the Government must act. The secrecy, the dominance by a few uncompetitive companies, and the disillusioned, untrusting customer base, which is largely disengaged, all lead to one certain outcome: a consistent failure of the market to offer fair prices. That should be no surprise to any of us. We have regional monopolies—secret and inefficient—low customer engagement and unresponsive pricing. That is why this debate is so important.
I said the UK energy market does not offer fair prices, so let me illustrate that central criticism. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) said, the big six energy giants account for 85% of the market, and they treat their long-standing loyal customers worst, as the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare pointed out. Those customers, without exception, will pay for energy on the most expensive default tariff. The only customers treated worse are those forced to live in a home that has a prepayment meter, either because the landlord requires it or because they have a poor credit or payment history. In 20 years, this group has grown to account for 16% of all households. Even the CMA could not ignore the fact that this group pays a premium of around £80 a year, as well as paying in advance for its energy. I therefore welcome, as I said, the decision to provide some price protection by capping the amount an energy company can charge these customers, but that measure does nothing for the remaining majority of customers who are also being overcharged year after year.
What about the overcharging of the majority of mainstream consumers? Even the CMA could not fully explain this overcharging. Its best estimate was that between 2012 and 2015 the average amount overcharged was some £1.5 billion per year, reaching almost £2 billion per year by 2015. The CMA also found that the revenue from standard available tariff customers was 11% higher for electricity and 15% higher for gas compared with the average revenue for other customers—and this before any of the current price hikes came into effect. The CMA concluded that in any one year the “detriment”, as it describes it—the amount that is overcharged—was  made up of about £600 million a year in excess profits, and the remainder, about £850 million, was down to “inefficiencies”, whatever they may be. This points to bad management by some very highly paid individuals.

John Penrose: The right hon. Lady is making a very compelling case, as she did with me in the dragons’ den pitch for this debate. She is absolutely right about the CMA’s figures showing such horrendous levels of customer detriment. Not only that, but the gap between the standard variable price that is being charged and the wholesale price has been getting wider over the past four years, so the situation is bad and getting worse as time goes by.

Caroline Flint: Exactly. We have the historical evidence that month by month people are still paying far too much for their energy bills.
It is absolutely astonishing that this is happening in what is meant to be a competitive market. The overcharging and the excessive profit margin made from standard variable tariff customers clearly provides no encouragement to move those customers on to a better deal. I believe that this is a bankrupt business model. If we are all admitting—even the energy companies have had to face up to this—that people are paying over the odds, then the companies have a business model based on that. If all these customers were miraculously to move to a lower tariff tomorrow, where would the companies be left? The inertia is compounded by a management approach that does not seem to want any form of effective change.
Unfortunately, the more the Government have publicly urged consumers to switch to save, the more the companies are absolved of any responsibility to move customers on to a better deal. A sticky, passive, unengaged customer base appears to suit some of these firms down to the ground. When, back in 2012, EDF automatically moved vulnerable elderly customers on to its cheapest tariff, sadly other suppliers did not follow up with this better practice.
The CMA’s final report concluded that to eliminate overcharging, prices would have to fall across the board by an average of 3% per year between now and 2020. It hoped that its measures to promote switching would create more competition in the market and have a downward effect on prices, but it was reluctant to say exactly how successful it expected that to be. The problem that the CMA faces is that the UK has an energy market with unhappy consumers, a dysfunctional pricing mechanism, and companies that are, I am afraid, largely immune to competitive pressures.
Ofgem has reported that some 3.3 million households switched supplier from January to December 2016. This is apparently the highest level of switching for six years, but it equates to less than 12% of households. I worry that we have a two-tier energy market: an active, informed class of consumer who is energy-conscious, internet-savvy, shopping around and managing their accounts online, and a far bigger, less informed, less engaged, less internet-savvy, discontented majority.

Iain Wright: My right hon. Friend is second to none in her knowledge of energy policy. She may be coming on to this, but I would be interested to get her thoughts on policy fixes. Does she think that the regulator  has the powers but is not using them, or that the Government need to give the regulator more powers to help fix this broken market?

Caroline Flint: The regulator already has powers in its back pocket. It can intervene if it thinks that the market is uncompetitive. It can, if necessary, take customers off a company that is failing and allow them to get a better deal elsewhere from other suppliers. However, we do need Government to take responsibility. Whether we have the relative price cap that the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare proposes or my suggestion of a protected tariff—if not permanent, then temporary—to fix this market, it is clear that more reform is needed. I wish that the regulator would use its powers; it has been very slow to do so, although it has speeded up in recent years. There is more it could do, but there is more that Government could provide it with to do a better job.
One of the CMA’s proposals is that data on customers should be shared so that other energy suppliers can send their offers to customers. The problem is that people will be bombarded with leaflets and emails from operators in a sector in which their trust is already so low that they may not put any more in this marketing mechanism. These are the very people—immune to direct mail, annoyed by calls from would-be energy suppliers, and mistrustful of the whole industry—who are not being helped by any of the measures put forward since the CMA report.
The CMA believes that by encouraging switching and a shared database for companies to market new tariffs to each other’s customers, price competition can be made to work. However, I am afraid that this shared database seems to be a new label for an old solution. We have had six years of trying to bring a consumer benefit by switching—six years of abject failure. I must therefore ask the Minister whether it is realistic to assume that 28 million households will be able to reduce their average bills by 3% a year, as the CMA suggests, for each year between 2017 and 2020. The CMA believes that if it succeeds in its aim, this steady price fall would eliminate the overcharging—the detriment—but even if it did, it would not repay one penny of the money already unfairly taken from consumers. I see no mechanism in the CMA’s prescription that can achieve even the objective it has set. Adding customers who have remained on a standard default tariff for three years to a huge marketing database for other companies to prey on will not, in itself, make this market more competitive.
In March, Ofgem published the information that January’s cheapest available tariff was 22% cheaper than the average customer’s bill, but did not identify how long that offer lasted or how many customers benefited. However, let us follow its logic. What if that tariff was widely available? What if the 12% of switchers—3.3 million consumers—all switched to this new best value tariff, and what if those 12% of customers all got a saving of 20% on their bills? This change alone might notionally cut average bills by 2%—almost the 3% the CMA hoped to achieve through its measures—but it would not reduce the detriment by one penny for the 88% who do not switch. The penalty incurred by the vast majority would remain.
Also among the CMA’s recommendations is that price comparison websites should no longer have to display every deal on the market, so consumers may  only see the deals that give the website a commission. The majority of customers who remain resistant to the lures of the marketeers will still see no gain. Those customers—some 20 million who pay the default standard variable tariffs and endure their prices going up and down as the energy provider chooses—are left at the mercy of their supplier, who the CMA has already identified as consistently overcharging them. They certainly cannot rely on wholesale prices to save them, because there is no obligation to pass on falls in wholesale prices to consumers—not even in part. Ofgem reported that wholesale gas prices fell by 44% between 2012 and 2016, yet consumers saw their energy bills rise by 7% over the same period. Such a perverse result could happen only in a dysfunctional market. Where do consumers turn to get fairness? The only avenue for the majority of consumers is the Government, who are the one agency with the powers to change the game at a stroke. How long will the public have to wait before the Government finally act as a consumers’ champion?
In 2011, when I became shadow Energy and Climate Change Secretary, I advised the Government that energy bills were soaring, but they did nothing. In October 2011, the then Prime Minister convened an energy summit and proposed to write to millions of consumers about switching, but that did not work. In November 2013, Mr Cameron tried a different approach: “get rid of all the green crap,” a senior source reported him as saying.
As has been touched on in this debate, the big six always like to divert discussion of bills on to green levies, even though investment in renewable energy and low carbon energy is exerting a downward pressure on wholesale prices. It is ironic that domestic consumption of energy, in kilowatt hours, has gone down, but we are paying more in our bills. The former Prime Minister said, “get rid of the green crap”, and he did so. The Government shortly afterwards reduced some of the environmental obligations and network charges and cut bills by between £39 and £50. Unfortunately, that year energy bills rose by an average of £120, so that did not work.
Mr Cameron always ridiculed Labour’s energy price freeze, which was a proposal to cap energy prices for 20 months while the energy market was reformed. Instead, in 2014 he announced the CMA investigation. Its initial findings the following year and its final report in June 2016 entirely vindicated Labour’s concern about unfair energy prices. We now have it on the record from one of the Government’s regulators: Britain’s consumers were ripped off year after year for a period of four years—that we know of. About that there is no dispute. It is an  £8 billion scandal, and every month the financial punishment for customers grows.
So what do we want? My plea to the Government is simple. Recognise the scale of the problem. Recognise that switching campaigns, which have now become a gimmick, can only scratch the surface. They will never get to the heart of the problem. Recognise that the industry needs reform, and that until it is reformed, the Government need to introduce price protection for consumers.
I believe that that protection should take the form of a protected tariff, and I first argued for such a tariff after the general election in 2015. Consumers need nothing less than some sort of regulated maximum charge that companies can levy, which is based on  wholesale prices, network costs and an acceptable level of profit. I do not believe that that can be left to the companies. Any voluntary measure is welcome, but the approach has been too piecemeal. We need the Government to act by introducing a protected tariff, which is set by Ofgem. We know that Ofgem is capable of that calculation, because it has just done a similar exercise for 3.5 million prepayment meter customers.
Am I asking for something outlandish? No. Northern Ireland still has price regulation, and a majority of countries in the European Union still have price controls of one sort or another. In the matter of price controls, we are not thwarted by the European Union. We cannot blame either the EU or Brexit for the Government’s failure to address this injustice. The problem lands on the doorsteps of No. 10 and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. The Government have the power and the means to end the unfairness in our energy market, or at least to offer a temporary respite, as they have done for prepayment customers, until more substantial reforms can be enacted.
In November the Secretary of State said:
“Customers who are loyal to their energy supplier should be treated well, not taken for a ride. It’s high time the big companies recognised this. I have made clear that this cannot go on and they must treat customers properly or be made to do so.”
I say to the Minister: now is the time. This problem is not going away, and I urge the Government to listen to the voices of Members of all parties who believe that the current energy market does not serve the British people well. Action is long overdue.

Kerry McCarthy: It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), if a little daunting to speak after such a tour de force. As has been said, she is second to none in her knowledge of this issue. I congratulate the hon. Members for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) and for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) on their support in securing this timely debate, which comes in the wake of the most recent excessive price rises by the big six energy companies. It is good to join this cross-party platform to urge the Government to do something to stop those companies ripping their customers off. The companies have been getting away with it for far too long.
My right hon. Friend has campaigned for fair energy prices for the past six years. If dogged determination were enough to secure victory, it would have paid off long before now, but very little has changed during that time, as we have heard. Despite talking big on energy reform, the Government have failed to act where the market is failing. They quietly dropped a promise made by the Prime Minister in 2012 to force companies to switch customers to their lowest tariff; and, despite the rhetoric about cutting the green crap, they failed to ensure that the reductions they made to environmental and other obligations resulted in lower energy bills.
Ofgem’s capping of prices for customers on prepayment meters on the recommendation of the Competition and Markets Authority is welcome, but I agree that we need action for all standard variable tariff customers. In  recent weeks, npower and SSE have raised their electricity prices by an eye-watering 15%, and another three of the large companies have increased their bills by nearly 10% on dual fuel standard variable tariffs. That is despite Ofgem saying that it saw no reason for price increases, given that wholesale prices are only just starting to increase from a low base. It has not gone unnoticed that many of those rises have been piled on to electricity, no doubt to ensure that as people start turning their heating off, bills remain high over the summer.
As has been said, it is grotesquely unfair that the current structure penalises the most long-standing and loyal customers, as well as the most vulnerable. The difference between a company’s cheapest tariffs and its SVTs is almost £200, and customers on SVTs pay 11% more for their electricity and 15% more for their gas than do customers on other tariffs. In 2015, consumers overpaid by a staggering £2 billion; The Observer estimated that that was the equivalent of a halfpenny rise on income tax. With 70% of big six customers on SVTs, these tariffs are clearly helping to support record profits; the profits of the big six increased tenfold between 2007 and 2013.
As we have heard, rising energy prices are putting a real strain on household budgets and hitting the poorest households, which are far less likely than others to switch, particularly hard. Energy bills now account for 10% of spending in the poorest households, compared with just 5.5% in 2004. Citizens Advice estimates that 2 million low-income families pay £141 extra every year.
I want to talk for a moment about my own constituency and the city of Bristol, which I am proud to represent. We have some of the worst incidence of fuel poverty in England. People always think of Bristol as an affluent place, but, as I am sure the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare will confirm, the fact that parts of a city or town are thriving does not mean that people in other parts of it are not living in poverty. More than 25,000 people in Bristol—13% of the city—are living in fuel poverty, against a national average of just under 10%. Variations within the city are particularly stark. In some neighbourhoods, nearly a quarter—more than 23%—of households are in fuel poverty. Those areas are within a mile of neighbourhoods in which the figure is only 5%. Local food banks increasingly have to help people who self-disconnect or who ration their energy use, as well as their food consumption, to save money. People too often have to choose between heating and eating—fuel or food—as we have heard.
For those who suffer from long-term health conditions, living in a cold home can cause considerable suffering and even early death. Last year in my constituency there were 30 excess winter deaths, of which around a third are estimated to have been caused simply by cold homes. Over the years, I have heard some shocking stories from constituents. I was contacted a while ago by one woman whose husband was extremely ill. Their cold home was not only making her husband’s health condition worse, but denying them the most basic of comforts. In her email to me, she said,
“all we would like is to be warm in our home”.
I do not think that that is too much for anyone to ask in this day and age.
Other MPs will have in their localities the new breed of municipal energy providers, which provide a very different offer from that of the big six, with fairer rates and cleaner energy. Bristol Energy was set up fairly recently by Bristol City Council. Bristol Energy is a national company, so anyone can switch to it, but there is a special tariff for people with a Bristol postcode. It was set up to help local people, as well as people from outside the city who want to join in, to pay less for their energy and to provide a new way to raise funds for the city, as all the profits will be reinvested back into Bristol. Its standard variable tariff is significantly cheaper than that of the big six—on average, £105 cheaper—and it keeps its fixed deals fair, too. It is currently trialling a warm homes plus tariff, to bring households in Bristol out of fuel poverty. This non-profit-making tariff is only available by referral, and Bristol Energy is working with the citizens advice bureau, the council and Bristol’s Centre for Sustainable Energy on those referrals. It is looking for 1,000 people to put on this tariff to start with, limited to a year, to help lift them out of fuel poverty. As I have said, the profits will be invested back into the city. In the longer term, we want to be really ambitious in tying energy in with the waste sector. I was told on one visit to a waste plant on the outskirts of the city that it is reckoned that Bristol’s waste alone could generate enough energy to heat 250,000 homes. That has absolutely to be the way forward: a local solution to a local problem.
However welcome new entrants such as Bristol Energy are to the energy market, they seem to have had little impact so far in putting pressure on the big six to reduce their prices. Despite better practices by some companies, pushing people to switch or telling them that that option is available is clearly not enough. Ann Robinson, an independent energy expert, said in The Observer at the weekend:
“Although I believe in competition—because when it works it can result in fairer prices—we have to face the fact that not everyone can and will engage in the market.”
A spokesman for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has said that Ministers are ready to act when the market is failing. Those words are encouraging, but it is absolutely clear that the market is failing for the majority of people. I am not sure when the Department will decide that it is time to act, but if it had not been made before this debate, the case has certainly been made very powerfully on both sides of the Chamber today that the market is failing and it is now time for the Government to act.
Just 15% of households are regular switchers, and 66% of the remainder are customers who have never switched supplier—the so-called sticky 66%. As proposed in the motion, we need an approach that keeps open the option of full switching, but ensures the sticky customer does not become disadvantaged by remaining on an uncompetitive tariff. I very much support the proposals from Labour’s Front-Bench team and my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley for tariff reform, which is fairer and much more transparent.
Much greater transparency—as a first step, the inclusion of a breakdown of costs behind each of the tariffs, as well as the wholesale energy and transmission costs, and add-ons, including green energy—with an improved annual renewal notice along the lines of motor insurance, would encourage more switching, but I believe we need  to go further still. We also need some kind of price controls for those on standard variable tariffs, and I urge the Government to pick up my right hon. Friend’s proposals for capping these tariffs.
My concern is that if we wait for the completion of the consultation on the Green Paper on when the Government should intervene in markets—it is due in the spring—it will be too late to affect energy prices next winter, and people will again suffer from having to pay above the odds with extortionate energy bills. The Observer said in an editorial:
“The government must reinstate price regulation until there is convincing evidence that market forces will provide value for consumers rather than unfairly enriching corporate profits.”
Consumers have been exploited for too long, and it is now time for the Government to act.

Patricia Gibson: I am delighted to be a co-sponsor of this debate, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and, indeed, the Backbench Business Committee, for enabling it to take place. As has been pointed out—this is one of the disadvantages of speaking so far down the list—this debate is long overdue. Ultimately, it is a debate about how we can empower consumers, as they too often face injustice in relation to energy prices.
We know that average annual domestic gas and electricity bills in Scotland increased by up to 114% and 50% respectively between 2004 and 2015, but the price that consumers pay varies, depending on their method of payment, and the consumer does not always have control over their method of payment. On average, electricity and gas consumers across Scotland using standard credit and prepayment meters face bills that are approximately 10% higher than for those able to use direct debit. The cost of a unit of gas is similar across Scotland and the rest of the British energy market for domestic consumers, but the unit price of electricity differs considerably within Scotland. Consumers in the north of Scotland pay on average between 8% and 9% more per kilowatt-hour of electricity, depending on payment type, than in the rest of Britain.
The big six energy companies supply gas and electricity to over 50 million homes, with a market share of 85% of UK domestic customers. Last year, the Competition and Markets Authority completed a two-year inquiry into the energy market, and the hope is that costs can be driven down by increasing competition between suppliers and helping more customers to switch to better deals. However, as we have heard, there is a problem. The Competition and Markets Authority has found that the
“vast majority of people don’t switch providers”,
and, even worse, that 70% of all big six customers are on the default standard variable tariff, which means that 16 million homes are paying more for their energy than they should. As the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare pointed out, loyalty is treated as something to be exploited, rather than rewarded. The premium that standard variable tariff consumers pay over those who switch has tended to increase over time. In 2008, it was less than £100 each year, but by mid-2015 it stood at £330, and it currently stands at about £230. In all that time, rates of switching are no higher, so clearly, as the  motion sets out, the way to protect consumers cannot be done simply by encouraging them to switch suppliers; much more is required.
Consumers on standard variable tariffs are much more likely to be older, disabled, on low incomes, living in rented accommodation and without internet access. Those on standard variable tariffs did not see their bills fall by much when the cost of providing energy dropped in 2014-15. Such savings as were available were passed on only to consumers who were active switchers. Not all consumers can engage in the switching process, so clearly suppliers need to do more to ensure that these customers are not trapped in poor deals.
The existing market provides scope for households to save money on their energy bills by switching, but a low level of consumer engagement in the market still persists. Indeed, the Competition and Markets Authority found in its investigations that one of the main issues is
“a lack of engagement in the markets on the part of many customers which suppliers are able to exploit by charging high prices.”
Some 34% of domestic energy customers had never considered switching supplier, with 56% saying they did not know if it was possible or did not know if they had done so in the past. In the context of this debate, I want to draw attention to one issue of concern. Switching can take up to 21 days, which is a considerable period. A consumer thinking about switching may be concerned or fear that something will go wrong during that extended period, for which I do not believe there is sufficient justification.
One result is that energy is becoming increasingly unaffordable for consumers. Between 2004 and 2014, average annual domestic gas prices rose by about 125% in real terms. Significantly, consumers who are engaged in the market are typically higher income earners who have access to both a mains gas supply and the internet, so they can carry out comparison shopping much more easily, and they can of course pay by direct debit. This is yet more evidence that the way to protect consumers is not simply to encourage them to switch suppliers.
Energy efficiency measures are important, as we have heard. The Scottish Government have done a lot of work on that, and they are driving down fuel poverty, although it still remains stubbornly high. Ultimately and fundamentally, however, we need effective regulation of the retail energy market, and we need to work collaboratively with energy suppliers to explore ways of helping low-income households with their energy bills. We need a market that works equally well for all energy consumers, regardless of where they are on the income scale.
It will be important to monitor closely the widespread review that Ofgem is currently undertaking of its consumer regulation framework. Given what we have heard today, there must be a case for the safeguard tariff—the limit on the amount prepayment customers are charged—to be expanded to include consumers on the standard variable tariff who are eligible for the warm home discount on a credit meter. It is also important for the Government to set targets for suppliers to reduce significantly by 2020 the number of customers on standard variable tariffs. If suppliers cannot or do not meet these targets, consideration must be given to broadening the  safeguard tariff to protect other standard variable tariff customers. I would very much like the Minister to address these issues today.
Just because consumers, who very often are vulnerable, are not able to negotiate the process of switching does not mean they should be left at the mercy of a market that punishes them for it. Energy is an essential utility and much more must be done to protect those who are currently very poorly served and overcharged. I think we all agree that doing nothing is not an option. I hope the Minister addresses the concerns that I and others have raised today, and reassures the House that he is protecting consumers and putting energy companies on notice that things cannot and must not continue in the same way as they have been.

Judith Cummins: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson).
Bradford is a proud city, but it faces its share of challenges. Many in Bradford endure poverty despite being in paid work. In-work poverty is rife. Despite working long hours week-in, week-out, pay-packets simply do not meet the basic necessities. One such basic necessity is how to pay gas and electricity bills when they drop on to the doormat. To my mind, that is what today’s debate is all about.
As energy prices soar and wages continue to stagnate, hard-pressed families and those on low incomes are faced with desperate choices. What should they pay first: their rent or their electricity bill? What is more important: their weekly food shop or their gas bill? What is better for their family: a warm home or food on their kitchen table? Without doubt, soaring energy prices touch every single person in this country, but the poorest suffer disproportionately.
What is clear is that the wider energy market is in chaos. For how many hours have coal-fired power stations provided electricity to the grid this winter? Previously, coal provided 12 terawatt hours a year. How many terawatts has coal produced in the last year? Is it not the case that coal stations produce more emissions on lower loads? How will the current capacity market mechanism guarantee new power stations? Is the bid price not too low? The market is failing consumers and failing to secure the nation’s energy future.
It is also clear that the energy sector is no longer operating in the interests of our constituents. All the big six energy companies—except British Gas, to its credit—have recently announced price hikes. Competition is supposed to be there to drive down costs and lower prices. The big six enjoy a near monopoly position—a huge 85% market share. When prices are hiked within days of each other, that is strong evidence the market is broken. The Government cannot continue to argue that competition in the energy sector is the key to lower bills. The big six are failing to get ordinary families and hard-pressed individuals on to their cheapest tariff. For 20 million households to be stranded on default tariffs is a scandal. The mantra about helping customers—my constituents—on to the cheapest tariffs is little more than spin. Customers could be paying an additional £230 each year. That is a huge sum when family budgets are under such pressure.
In Bradford, I am fortunate that my local council is working to tackle fuel poverty, but it cannot control the big six energy companies. That is solely within the gift of the Government. In 2015, Bradford Council adopted a fuel poverty framework for action. This, devised in partnership with the respected National Energy Action, undertook a detailed analysis of the scale of fuel poverty in Bradford. The study discovered that although in recent years homes in Bradford have benefited from some 50,000 energy efficiency measures—from loft insulation to new boilers—one in eight households continue to suffer fuel poverty. That remains the case today.
Bradford is a city blessed with a long and rich history, but its historical and industrial past means that a substantial proportion of its housing is very old. Nearly 40% of the city’s housing stock was built before 1919, which is considerably above the national average of nearly 25%. A further 21% of the city’s housing stock was built between 1919 and 1944. These homes are classified as hard to treat, as they are stone-built or feature irregular constructions. In many other towns and cities throughout the country, a family faced with soaring energy prices might consider improving the energy efficiency of their home—if, of course, they could afford it. In Bradford, however, the prevalence of hard-to-treat homes means energy efficiency schemes are neither quick nor affordable. Measures are complex and expensive. The prospect of a hard-pressed family meeting the expense of a complex scheme is ever more unlikely in light of the Government’s policies.
The plight of families is especially desperate in the private rented sector in Bradford. As families have been priced out of the housing market, many have found themselves in rented accommodation that has seen little investment for many years. The number of households in the private rented sector in Bradford has rocketed from 17,500 households in 2001 to nearly 40,000 in 2015. It now accounts for over 18% of the total housing stock.
I recognise that the Government are taking steps to tackle fuel poverty in the private rented sector. Regrettably, the measures announced by the Government lack ambition. The legal minimum requirement in the private rented sector has been set at “E”. This represents the average rating for the country’s housing stock. An ambitious Government would have set the legal minimum much higher. If the Government had done so, an average family in private rented accommodation could have looked forward to a warmer home and saved hundreds of pounds every year.
The damage wreaked by fuel poverty is not limited to people’s finances. A cold home severely damages the health and wellbeing of my constituents. Evidence proves that living in a cold home aggravates a range of health problems, including circulatory conditions, cardiovascular disease and mental health. In extreme circumstances, living in a cold home leads to premature death during the winter months. To my shock, the rate of premature death in Bradford for the period 2010 to 2013 was over 22%. That is 5% higher than for the Yorkshire and Humber region, and for England as a whole. People are literally paying for fuel poverty with their lives.
This situation must not go on. The Government must take action to tackle fuel poverty. The double whammy of soaring energy costs and cuts to energy efficiency schemes is pushing hard-pressed families in Bradford  close to the edge. For many families, the desperate choice is between a warm home and food on the table. That is unacceptable in this day and age.

Lisa Cameron: I would like to thank every single hon. Member for their contribution today. In particular, I thank the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) for bringing the issue of energy prices and the treatment of consumers to the House, via the Backbench Business Committee.
The big six have a lot to answer for. Rewarding long-term and loyal customers with the highest tariffs is simply appalling. Many of these individuals are elderly, vulnerable or disabled, have learning disabilities or mental health problems and can least afford them. When my own grandmother was transferred to hospital in her 90s, we examined the tariff she was paying for. It was about two times higher than what we were paying. Pensioners have a tight budget and may be frail and very elderly. They rely on heating to prevent pneumonia. How can these companies sleep at night?
There has been a great deal of talk about switching, and why we do not do it more. I hope I am not the only person who has been bamboozled by energy tariffs. I have a doctorate, but I find the system absolutely incomprehensible and the tariffs incomparable. I have tried on a number of occasions to compare day rates, night rates and standard daily charges, but without a PhD in mathematics, it is all but impossible. On two occasions I switched rates to save money, and then found that my bill had increased. I cannot help thinking that the system has been made over-complex for people on purpose.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare has suggested a relative energy cap to help those who are currently being mercilessly ripped off. That proposal is apparently supported by a number of competitor brands, and I urge the Minister to consider it. It may be an interim solution, as has been said, but it will save customers—our constituents—money. Our focus should, indeed must, be on them. The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) mentioned the exorbitant price differential if consumers make the wrong decision, pointing out that the big six often do not act in the interests of customers.

Jim Cunningham: Over the years the House has had many debates about the big six, but is it not time for a proper inquiry into how they actually operate? It seems to me that they are a cartel that fixes prices most of the time, and at the end of the day the hon. Lady’s constituents and mine suffer as a result.

Lisa Cameron: That is an important point. It has been made clear repeatedly today that many Members feel that there is a monopoly, and that consumers must be put at the heart of energy pricing. The hon. Member for Hartlepool described the difficulties that people have experienced in switching suppliers, and pointed out that, while energy costs have fallen, prices have been hiked. That in itself is an absolute disgrace.
Mention has been made of smart meters, which, although they help individuals to monitor energy  usage, appear to place responsibility on consumers, as thougheb;normal;j they were using too much, when in  fact they are paying too much. Smart meters are not the sole answer, and companies must step up and take responsibility.
My hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) has asked me to point out that fuel poverty rates in the Western Isles are higher than those in any other local authority area in Scotland. The announcement from SSE that it will increase energy prices by 14.9% is a huge blow to his constituents. What measures will the Government take to address the issues that are being faced exponentially by those in island and rural communities?
The hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) said that “just about managing” families were being most affected, and that the Government were not standing up for their rights. She also rightly drew attention to the impact of fuel poverty. In an excellent speech, the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) discussed the levels of dissatisfaction among customers throughout the United Kingdom, which she said should ring alarm bells for the Government. She emphasised that those who were struggling to pay were paying the most, and that, meanwhile, company profits were increasing. The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) spoke of Bristol Energy’s contribution to fair pricing locally, and the level of local fuel poverty. She was right to highlight her constituency concerns.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) described the situation in Scotland, particularly in rural and northern areas. She said that it could take 21 days to change supplier, which in itself was putting people off—the process is inflated. She called for an extension of the safeguard tariff, and said that the Government should consider the need for reductions in the percentage of consumers on the standard tariff within a set time frame. There are rural areas in my constituency that are still off the grid. Much more needs to be done to support rural communities that have little choice when it comes to costs and types of energy. I urge the Minister to address that, because those communities are among the worst affected by price changes. The hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) spoke of soaring energy prices, and said that the poorest suffered disproportionately.
As for Scottish Government policy, a draft Scottish energy strategy is now open for consultation, and I encourage those who are interested to give their opinions. The Scottish Government remain committed to putting consumers at the heart of their policy, and to their renewables targets. I urge the Minister to act, because we do not need a postcode lottery. Everything that we have heard today makes clear that the energy sector needs reform and needs it now, and that that reform must be made to serve customers rather than itself.

Alan Whitehead: We have had an excellent and powerful debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) for securing it. I know there were a number of problems with the televising of  the pitch for it, but as it turned out the pitch was successful, and the wisdom of the Backbench Business Committee has been borne out by the powerful contributions made today by my hon. Friends the Members for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) and for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins).
I intend to comment specifically on what Members have said today, but I think we can agree that they all emphasised that the present energy market is broken and no longer doing its best for customers, who, after all, are at the heart of energy generation and supply. We have found ourselves in rather an odd position, in that we have not been discussing—as we frequently do in the Chamber—the plight of a persecuted minority and what we might do about it; instead, we have been discussing the plight of a persecuted majority and what we might do about it. If that does not emphasise the point that Members have been making about the brokenness of the market, I do not know what does.
We have seen eye-watering price increases lately. A number of companies have raised the price of dual fuel by 10%, and there have been double-figure increases in electricity bills from others. The companies justify their increases on the basis of a combination of wholesale prices and the Government’s environmental measures, and even—as we have heard recently—the impact of smart meters. The problem is that we have no easy way of assessing the extent to which those claims are justified. However, as was emphasised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley, we need to lay one canard to rest, and that is the suggestion that price rises are a result of low-carbon levies. They are not. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool, the recent report from the Committee on Climate Change indicated that, overall, only 9% of bills result from Government energy measures. Indeed, not only are those energy measures not a huge part of the overall bill, but they will contribute to decreasing bills in the future by decreasing demand, by increasing energy efficiency, and, in terms of renewable energy, by changing the merit order of energy supply so that eventually the wholesale price of energy can be driven down over a period.

Iain Wright: What does my hon. Friend think about the fact that E.ON UK last week justified its dual fuel price increase by saying:
“It is due mainly”—
we should think about that word—
“to the rise in non-energy parts of the bill such as social and environmental schemes which support renewable energy and help customers use less energy”?
Yet today it has announced big rises in profits, primarily owing to lower costs in conjunction with Government-mandated energy efficiency measures. They want to have their cake and eat it.

Alan Whitehead: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point; they do want to have their cake and eat it. The problem is that we are not sure where the cake is and how we can work out which bits of the cake come from which source, because the whole energy market as it stands is non-transparent. Transparency is central to  being able to judge whether such price rises are justified. The transactions that the energy companies undertake in order to trade, to hedge their trading, and to bring the costs of wholesale into the retail market are almost wholly opaque, and they continue to be so.
In addition, as we have heard this afternoon, the persecuted majority get hit all ways; they are hit by the price rises and hit by paying for the most expensive tariffs in the company roster—and in some cases, up to 90% of the customers of those companies are paying for the most expensive tariffs. So not only should we not speak about standard variable tariff customers as if they are an endangered minority, because they are in fact an endangered majority, but we must stop suggesting that it is somehow their fault that they have not switched and as if they are responsible for not switching. If we look at the history that my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley pointed out, we see a correlation between the areas from which modern energy companies originated and their sticky customer base. In fact, in a number of instances, a large proportion of those sticky customers were inherited when the companies were privatised and stayed with them ever since. One might think that that shows admirable loyalty to those companies, and that to treat those customers in the way we have heard about this afternoon is absolutely the wrong thing to do.
Such behaviour produces a huge base of customers that is advantageous to energy companies, not to put too fine a point on it. As the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare said, those customers will pay more for less year after year, they will not desert the company as a result, and they can be relied on to be milked to the benefit of the company’s finances. That points to the problem with the solution to this issue that the Government and the Competition and Markets Authority have been pursuing, which is sort of to blame those sticky customers for the plight they find themselves in and say, “Well, if only you’d switched, everything would be okay.” Indeed, that idea is at the heart of the recent CMA report on the energy market: “Why don’t all these sticky customers switch? If they don’t, how can we poke and prod them until they do? If we keep prodding and poking them and they still do not switch, we can get other companies in to poke and prod them a bit more and then they might switch.” That is not a satisfactory final remedy, given the scale, the nature and the brokenness of the market.
However, we should not therefore be surprised to read in the principles attached to the provisional remedies that the CMA put forward—the principles on which it operated the recent inquiry—the following statement:
“It is through customers shopping around and making choices between the offerings of rival suppliers that the benefits of competition emerge.”
That is what it thought it was doing through the inquiry.
The CMA has come up with the idea of putting a cap on tariffs for customers on prepaid meters, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central, who has been instrumental in securing that through her campaigning on the status of those on prepaid meters and the excess sums they were paying. However, although that cap idea is welcome, it does not do very much for the overall issue. We know that those sticky customers are not going to switch in a hurry and that the energy companies know that; we know that there is no evidence   that companies are trembling at the thought of their customers switching and are trimming their rises accordingly. As we have heard this afternoon, the evidence from reports is that switching is a substantial occupation for some, but not for most. Switching figures in total often conceal a churn of switching between companies, often ending back in the same place, and multiple switching by a proactive few, but none by most.
So we have almost a perfect storm in our markets. Prices are spiralling. Ofgem said about recent price rises that it did not
“see any case for significant price increases where suppliers have bought energy well in advance.”
Customers were stuck in the middle of that spiral, however, and in most instances were paying out on disadvantageous tariffs, to boot. So, in the customers’ interest, we need to get a grip on that problem urgently.
We have heard this afternoon that getting that grip has been promised on a number of occasions. We heard that the Prime Minister suggested that everyone should be put on the lowest tariff. That has disappeared. We heard more recently Ministers saying that companies are in the last-chance saloon and something has to happen, but very little has actually taken place. That is despite the fact that, as Members have mentioned, it is plain that customers have been overcharged for a long period by energy companies, with the CMA itself estimating a sum of almost £2 billion by 2015.
So a regulated price cap within which competition could take place is a good idea. I recognise, however, that a price cap has to be considered within the context of the fact that there will be real pressures on costs. It is true that, on occasions, wholesale markets go up, and the energy companies will have to absorb that through price increases. So a cap that allows that arrangement to take place, but within which work can be done to ensure that competition remains, is a good starting idea, as is the idea that sticky customers should, after a certain period, be taken into protected tariffs, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley suggested, or on to the lowest tariff that a company offers. That is one way of starting to take action in relation to sticky customers.
I believe that there is rather more to the present dysfunction of the energy market than just the question of sticky customers, however. Ofgem said recently that there was not a case for significant price rises when suppliers had bought energy well in advance. Perhaps we need to deconstruct that sentence. It is not clear whether Ofgem was referring to companies buying wisely in advance or a long time in advance. Either way, the injunction is sound. Long-term buying strategies and smart hedging mean that price rises should not be spiking in the way that they all too often do, but we do not know what companies are actually up to when they are buying.
We do not know what is happening as far as energy company trades are concerned. For example, 95% of trades by wholesale energy companies are over the counter and we cannot see what they consist of. We do not know the extent to which energy companies that are vertically integrated effectively trade with themselves, or the extent to which this reflects fair trade in the market in forward trading. Surely we need to open up the market to full transparency, not just day-ahead but right along the curve, so that we know what is going on  and we can act to prevent the abuses of trading positions that take place to the advantage of companies’ resources but to the disadvantage of customers.

John Penrose: I am sure that transparency is a sensible and worthwhile thing to aim for, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that it does not matter terribly much from a consumer’s point of view, because consumers do not care whether their supplier has a good hedging strategy or a bad one? That is up to the supplier to deal with and to manage. Some will get it right and some will get it wrong, but if they get it wrong, it should hit their managers’ bonuses and their shareholders’ returns rather than the price that the consumer eventually pays. We might want to understand this, but we should not seek to use it as a justification for high or low prices. Ultimately we should be tougher on the suppliers than that.

Alan Whitehead: Indeed. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the relationship of the customer to those transactions. However, with vertical integration, those transactions could cause money that should go to the customer to be siphoned off into different areas as a result of those opaque trades, and that is important to the customer in the long term. That is why we need full transparency in all those market trade arrangements.

Caroline Flint: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the vertically integrated nature of these companies. In this dark, dark world of electricity generation and supply, is it not the case that the big six generate energy, sell it to themselves and then sell it on to us? That not only impacts on the fairness of pricing but excludes others, including independent generators and retailers, from coming into the market to put downward pressure on prices.

Alan Whitehead: My right hon. Friend’s point is spot on. It demonstrates the need to understand a lot more about how those trades work, who is doing what to whom and, sometimes, who is doing what to themselves. This is a complicated picture, involving trading right up to closure and trading in times of scarcity. There has been a suggestion that traders can pull back on their generation in order to trade when the generation becomes more scarce in order to get more money. The lack of accountability in those companies and the opacity of the system mean that we are badly served in regard to knowing what money goes where and who is benefiting from it, and what is happening to the customer in the end.
We need to open up the market to full transparency but we need to go still further and introduce a pool system of trading, so that all trades into the pool and all trades out of it are conducted transparently and, most importantly, on a level playing field for all suppliers. This works in other European countries—Scandinavia has the Nord Pool, for example—so why can it not work here? That does not mean that companies cannot make money. As Ofgem says, if companies have a good purchasing and hedging strategy, they can make money. What they will not be able to do is pass benefits on to themselves that otherwise ought to go to the customer.
We need urgent action, which is perhaps a little ironic. My right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley will recall that we have between us been through several Bills, now Acts, and reforms that have passed through the House under the heading of energy market reform. We have seen a great deal of reform, but we certainly have not seen reform of the energy market in all that time. It is time that we got serious about reform of how the energy market works, of its opacity, and of how it does not serve sticky customers properly, victimising and demonising the majority of them. We need urgent action on that. Otherwise, we will be condemned to the same old cycle of price rises, muttering, remedies being tossed around, commissions being engaged, remedies gathering dust on shelves, and then another round of price rises. I commend the motion, but it should herald the start of a serious look at how the whole market works and how the customer can finally be brought into its centre. It is a fine start, but we need to follow it through to the end.

Jesse Norman: This is the second debate in which I have had the pleasure of speaking this week, Mr Deputy Speaker, and, as the fellow said, truly you’re getting to be a habit with me, and I thoroughly welcome that.

Lindsay Hoyle: Always a pleasure.

Jesse Norman: Let that be noted in the record. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) on fighting his way through the dragons of dragons’ den and, with his colleagues, securing the booty of this debate, which I greatly welcome. Whatever else its effect might be, it sends a powerful signal about the feelings of not only the Members who have spoken so well today but Members up and down the country on the issues that have been described. I will talk about those issues and the policy and will try to weave in my responses to the speeches during the course of my comments.
The Government are firmly focused on getting the best deal for energy consumers and on ensuring that the market works for everyone. We absolutely expect energy companies to treat all their customers fairly. We therefore continue to be concerned about price rises that will hit millions of people already paying more than they need to. It is not acceptable that five of the largest suppliers are increasing their standard variable prices, hitting customers hard in the pocket when they are already paying more than necessary. It must be noted that wholesale prices, which account for about half of an average bill, are still lower than in 2014. This is a moment not for crisis, but for sober reflection.
Prices are not the same as bills. The recent report from the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee reminded us that electricity bills have risen little over the past 25 years, which is due to insulation, appliance improvement and other things. Prices are not the  same as bills, but that is not to say that prices are  not important and that price rises are not a matter  for concern.

Caroline Flint: It is important that we have a candid, open and honest discussion. The Minister makes a good point about prices versus bills, because the amount of energy that we use has gone down significantly over the past 10 years. Is he as concerned as I am that the big six might be keeping their tariffs unwelcomely high because they are having to compensate for the fact that we are using less energy?

Jesse Norman: It is an interesting suggestion that the changes may have cushioned the effect of price rises in the way the right hon. Lady describes. I thank her for that thought, and I would certainly like to give it some reflection.

John Penrose: Further to the intervention of my co-sponsor, the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), the point about prices versus bills is an important one. Does the Minister agree that if prices stay unfairly or unnecessarily high, one of the Government’s other main goals of improving overall productivity across the economy—energy bills are a vital and central part of the cost base for most businesses—will be much harder to achieve? We can do more with less if we are more efficient in our energy sector.

Jesse Norman: This is really a debate about retail energy prices. The problems are less marked in many areas of the business market, but it is undoubtedly true that business bills must be kept as low as possible to encourage productivity. As my hon. Friend knows, the Government have undertaken several steps precisely to achieve that.
Colleagues on both sides of the House have noted that, with suppliers buying their energy up to two years in advance, suppliers should be protected from recent fluctuations in the wholesale energy price. Some suppliers have chosen to act differently by freezing standard variable prices through winter and beyond, which alone shows that price rises are not inevitable. It is a fact that the majority of customers—around 66%—are on standard variable tariffs and continue to pay considerably more than customers on fixed-term deals.
The Competition and Markets Authority highlighted that such customers are losing out by an estimated £1.4 billion a year—that figure is disputed—over the past few years. There have been persistently high differentials between the cheapest fixed deals and standard variable tariffs. The latest published Ofgem data show the differential to be some £200. There has been good focus today on fuel poverty, as there was the other night, and it is those who can least afford it who are most likely to lose out. Households with low incomes, people with low qualifications, those in the rented sector and those over 65 are more likely to lose out than others. The recent price rises serve only to underline the fact that the majority of consumers are paying more than they need to pay.
What can be done about it? The House widely recognises that, in many markets, effective competition drives down prices, promotes innovation and assists improvement in customer services. The Government have worked hard with Ofgem to try to improve competition. The right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) mentioned “Groundhog Day,” possibly inadvertently casting herself in the role of Andie MacDowell, which is certainly how  I see her. It is not fair to say that we are in “Groundhog Day” because there has been some progress. Members rightly point to the fact that there are now more than 50 energy suppliers in the domestic market, up from 13 in 2010, and of course there are potential new entrants, including local authorities, waiting in the wings—we welcome them to the market. Independent suppliers now have more than 18% of the dual-fuel market, up from less than 1% seven years ago.
I was pleased to hear from the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who mentioned Bristol Energy and the social conscience it brings to energy supply, which is typical of a tier of new and wider-ranging suppliers, including not-for-profit suppliers, that have entered the market—there are housing providers, too. Smaller suppliers are leading the way in using smart, pre-pay and other technologies to support customers in finding the best deal using their mobile phone.
We had a good discussion on switching, and it has been rightly noted that an increasing number of households are switching their energy supplier. There were some 7.8 million energy account switches last year, an increase of 28% on the previous year. Switching is putting increasing competitive pressure on the big six—although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare noted, there is a great deal of churn—but it is still only 15.8% of gas and electricity customers, so we are a long way from a position where anyone should feel that a large number of people are actively availing themselves of the opportunity to switch, as one might expect in a more competitive market.
For too long, too many customers have been left on poor-value deals. At the end of last year, the Government announced new measures to increase transparency for consumers. I welcome the point the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) made about transparency, and he is right: several studies have found that the markets are less transparent here in many different ways than one might like. An effort was made to begin to crack that and increase transparency for consumers, including through the publication of an energy supplier league table by Ofgem, which was designed to shine a light on the most expensive standard variable tariffs.
We know that some consumers worry that switching supplier may be difficult and time-consuming. This is not just an economic matter; it is also a cultural matter. We must recognise that and not allow purely economic analysis to take over. We are also taking forward proposals to mandate Midata in the energy sector, which should also have an effect. Midata will allow consumers to get hold of their energy data electronically and use them to find the best deal. It will make the switching process quicker, easier and more accurate, and, with luck, it will allow people to switch using tablets and smartphone applications more easily. We are very keen that the benefits of this are not restricted, in any sense, to the tech savvy, but are available to anyone who owns a mobile phone at the very least. We will therefore work with industry, switching companies and consumer groups to ensure that all consumers can access and use their data to switch.
The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) rightly mentioned the time it takes to switch supplier. All I would say is that it used to take five weeks and the Government are working with Ofgem  to get it down now to 21 days. Once we have done that, we will work to push it down to where it should be, which is at 24 hours. That will be a major improvement to our system.
There was some discussion about customer service, where some improvement has been made. The latest Ofgem data show that suppliers received more than 3 million fewer customer complaints in 2016 than in 2014, but as there were still 3.5 million complaints that is not saying much and they still have a long way to go. We are working with Ofgem and the ombudsman to identify and fix systemic issues, which damage customer service. As the House will know, an Ofgem review last year resulted in increased communication between Ofgem, the ombudsman and Citizens Advice, an organisation I greatly esteem, as I know many colleagues do. It is working on developing a rating system that will help customers to see at a glance how their energy suppliers are performing.
As Members noted, the CMA had some positive things to report after concluding its two-year energy market investigation. It found that wholesale energy markets and the retail market for larger businesses are working well, but for domestic energy suppliers the report is a wake-up call. It is important to note that the CMA’s report was not unequivocal in every sense, and it has been contested; I note a letter from some senior energy regulators who raised the question of whether it is true to see detriment in the way the CMA has. It is important to acknowledge that fact. However, the CMA’s position was clear: consumers should be able to trust energy companies and to know that they are getting a good deal. The CMA found that a lack of competition meant that about 70% of big six customers remained on their supplier’s most expensive tariff despite the savings they could make by moving to another tariff. We have encouraged, and Ofgem is introducing, a prepayment meter cap, which will protect 4 million households across Britain from the beginning of next month.
We are determined to go further and, as the House will know, we have a consumer Green Paper in prospect, which will examine specific sectors. We will respond sooner rather than later, and separately, to the CMA energy market report. Our Green Paper will examine markets that are not working fairly for consumers. In general, consumers in this country enjoy strong protections and an effective regime which help them get the best deal, but where those markets are not doing their job—where competition is not effective—the Government will look to intervene to improve competition and to strengthen outcomes.
The Green Paper will complement and sit within the Government’s industrial strategy to build on the work to deliver an economy that, as I have described, works for everyone. We announced some proposals in the Budget, including the ending of the cycle of subscription traps, the shortening and simplification of small print, and the introduction of new powers to impose fines on companies that mistreat customers. The Green Paper will provide more detail on those proposals.
Let me round up my speech with a couple of reflections on some of the helpful comments that were made in Members’ speeches. I was intrigued to notice that, according to the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), it  is now Labour policy to renationalise the big six companies. I would welcome further clarification on that, together with an explanation of how much it would cost and how it would be funded. That was an interesting contribution.
I very much congratulate and thank my shadow, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, for recognising the complexity of the problem we face. He is certainly right to focus on transparency. In recognition of that, I assure him and my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare that the Government will reflect on such contributions. The Government’s record on intervening in electricity and energy markets is not absolutely unblemished. On several occasions, changes have been made, only for them to have to be unwound because it turned out that they were contrary to competitive pricing or innovation. That is worth recognising.

Caroline Flint: I listened positively to what the Minister said about the Government being prepared to intervene when a market is not working. I remind him that the Confederation of British Industry refers to the energy market as a managed market, because energy is an essential-to-life product; it really is set apart from the products that we discussed earlier, such as toothpaste, that we buy every day. I urge the Minister to stand up for what Governments should do, which is set the framework in which markets operate.

Jesse Norman: The right hon. Lady’s point is well taken. One does not need to have read far into “The Wealth of Nations” to know that markets are most effective not only when they are as deep as possible—when the benefits of specialisation and the division of labour, and therefore value generation, can be realised—but when they are supported by a strong state and a strong system of justice and enforcement. That is absolutely the tone of our approach to the market in this case.
I thank right hon. and hon. Members for a thoughtful and interesting debate that has covered a great deal of ground in a limited time. As the House will know, the Government are acting to make switching easier and quicker. We are rolling out smart meters and we are continuing to help the vulnerable and those in low-income households with their energy bills. The CMA did important work to highlight how much consumers are currently losing out, and we recognise that the recent price rises underline the fact that the majority of consumers are paying more, it appears, than they need to. We believe that current practice is not acceptable, and we will set out proposals to address the issues shortly.

John Penrose: I repeat my thanks, not only to my co-sponsors, the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), but to everybody else who took part in the debate, which has been full of passion and determination. This issue has been around for far too long and, in spite of the best efforts of successive Governments, it has not got better sufficiently quickly, so there is clearly further to travel.
I am very reassured by the direction of travel that the Minister has just laid out. I particularly welcome his comments about rolling out Midata, as it should solve many of the problems with data access, which are  obstacles to switching. However, it has been around for six years, and we are still waiting for its roll out—it is rather like waiting for Godot. We anticipate and we hope that it will arrive very shortly. It is good to hear that there is fresh impetus and fresh energy behind that move.
Equally, 24-hour switching will help to drive up competition. Right the way across the political spectrum and throughout this debate, there has been recognition that progress towards a properly competitive market in which the big six suppliers feel under pressure to look after their customers has been too slow and needs to move faster. I am very reassured to hear my hon. Friend making that commitment from the Government Benches, and saying that it is not moving fast enough. The clear implication of all the speeches we have heard today is that, politically, his way is clear. When people such as me, a bone dry free marketer, and others from across the political spectrum are willing to look at a relative price cap or other measures—I am talking about the Chairman of the Select Committee and the two Opposition Front-Bench speakers, the hon. Members for East Kilbride,  Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) and for Southampton, Test—we can say quite categorically that this is an idea whose time has come. There is a thirst for action and for movement. Therefore, the Government should be bold and willing to move soon.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House deplores the big six energy firms’ treatment of out-of-contract energy customers on default tariffs; believes immediate action is needed to protect those consumers, and that pushing customers to start switching will not fix the problem sufficiently quickly or completely on its own; and calls on the industry, regulators and the Government to consider solutions which recognise that many people lead busy lives and that switching their energy supplier may not always be a high priority.

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—(Andrew Griffiths.)
House adjourned.